Reagan, 1984: Social Security has nothing to do with balancing the budget or erasing deficits

[Miles Archer]

[CrispyQ]

1. McConnell is lying to The People.

Posting this video on FB for my republican family & acquaintances who would never believe this if a 'libtard' told them.

Also posting this to go with:

[ffr]

2. That's right boys and girls, SS is NOT an entitlement. It's a fund that you've paid into.

Republican's are looters.

[still_one]

3. You don't understand the word entitlement. It IS an entitlement. Entitlement means that you

Last edited Thu Oct 18, 2018, 12:28 PM - Edit history (1)

are entitled to receive the benefit from Social Security that you have been paying into

That is the same terminology used for annunities and pensions
That some try to redefine the word as some sort of "handout" is BS.

[ffr]

7. "the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment"

Look it up: entitlement. A savings account that you fund yourself and is held at a bank, like social security, is not something you are deserving of as a privilege or special treatment, it's yours outright.

[still_one]

9. I am telling you what the word means with regards to annuities, pensions, and social security

but you want to push the RW bullshit on their wrong connotation of the word

You are entitled to a benefit period

That is why social security and Medicare are called ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS

Because you ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT YOU PAID INTO THEM

[ffr]

13. Why are you attacking me then?

Please don't take this personally. Entitlement as defined by Websters

Definition of entitlement

1a : the state or condition of being entitled : right

b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2 : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

3 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

What I said: " That's right boys and girls, SS is NOT an entitlement. It's a fund that you've paid into"

What you said: "You don't understand the word entitlement. It IS an entitlement. Entitlement means that you are entitled to receive the benefit from Social Security that you have been paying into..."

You contradicted what I said by repeating what I said, then you double down on saying that I'm peddling RW bullshit? What did I say that you didn't say? Why are you drawing a line in the sand with me about how Websters defines words? Take it up with them!

[still_one]

14. I am not attacking you, and apologize if it came across that way, but a lot of people misunderstand

what the word means in regard to Social Security and Medicare, and try to coin the word entitlement wrongly as a handout.

In the connotation of Social Security, Medicare, and Pensions it is an entitlement, a right to a benefit:


Definition of entitlement from Webster:

1
a: the state or condition of being entitled : right

b: a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
3
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group
and pensions.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement

[PoliticAverse]

6. So you are saying people aren't entitled to it? n/t

[ffr]

8. Open mouth and insert. See above.

How many ways to Sunday can you misinterpret the obvious?

[still_one]

4. Two most important take aways are Congress has been stealinng from the Social Security fund for

decades, and we have been paying into that social security fund. It is like an annuity


Gore campaigned on this, and the f**KING MEDIA ASSHOLES, along with the republican ASSHOLES ridiculed and made fun of Gore

[PoliticAverse]

5. Sorry, but that's a myth debunked on the Social Security website...

From: https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

[BigGermanGuy]

10. the problem is

SS was capped at 100K on taxable income, and has not particularly kept up with inflation.

in order to fully fund it, we simply need to raise the cap, and tax income up to a higher level (or better yet, no cap). Same with capital gains.

[still_one]

12. Absolutely, but it also needs to be seperated from general fund use as Gore wanted to do

[still_one]

11. There was nothing I said that was false. I said Congress has been taking money that was paid from

the social security fund for decades. I didn't say it was illegal.

I also said that Al Gore campaigned that he would change that

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. But that's a silly way to put it and only further aids the republican smears of SS.

The government is not “taking” or “stealing” our social security funds . Social Securty is mandated to be invested in US Treasuries.

George Bush tried to demean SS by calling it nothing but a bunch of IOUs . Well, guess what, if you buy treasuries you are taking an IOU backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.

The government isn’t “taking” your money if your pension is partially invested in treasuries

[still_one]

17. I have no disagreement with anything you have posted, Social Security funds are required to purchase

treasuries.

The problem is that before the Viet Nam War the government always kept Social Security's income and expenditures on a completely separate leger. During the Viet Nam War Social Security Accounts were added to the general government budget. That was done to hide the cost of the war to our deficit

You are right, funds were not stolen from the social fund, but the way the funds accounted for make it difficult to account for it. At least that is my understanding.

The problem is that social security has not kept up with inflation, plus the baby boomers and other factors came into play. The baby boomers will eventually phase out through attrition. The permanent solution to social security funding issue, which actually won't start being a problem for 20 plus years is raise the CAP. Unfortunately, as solutions to the funding problem for Social Security and Medicare that the politicians as far as I am aware never bring up is raising the CAP.

Anyway to make a long story short I agree with you, it was a stupid way for me to address the argument the way I did

[RVN VET71]

18. still_one, I agree with you completely

But the main point of all this is that Mitch McConnell is a lying, deliberately lying, butthole who speaks out of his butt for the entire kleptocratic Republican Party, may there be a god in heaven or devil in hell to ensure eternal misery for every last one of them.

While there hasn't been actual theft involved with the trust fund, what the GOP is planning will amount to something far worse for 98% or so of the American people: the privatizing of Social Security so that the greedy incompetents who gave us a world-wide depression in 2008 can get their hands on literally trillions of our dollars with which to buy even bigger yachts and estates which they will enjoy knowing that they are completely insulated (because "too big to fail&quot from suffering the effects of the next worldwide debacle they cause.

[still_one]

20. We are all on the same page there RVN. McConnell and the republicans are lying their butts off, and

the Democrats better get out in front of this

Just before the financial implosion that is exactly what bush was trying to do "privatize part of social social security".

You are darn right, Wall Street wants to get their hand on that money, and with the short memories Americans seem to have, it is vital that Democrats have to be very aggressive and vocal just what they are trying to do

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. Ahh. I see what you are saying.

I’m so used to seeing it as part of the pie chart I never realized it was its own separate pie at one time.

[still_one]

22. Yes, but I didn't word it right, and no doubt I here was hyperbole on my part

[MarcA]

15. That was then. What would Reagan say now.

The Oligarchs are much farther along with their plans to destroy
democratic government. That said thanks for posting and Democrats
need this in their adverts.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. Yep. They need to run it without comment. Non-stop.

And now a word from Ronald Reagan...