We pay OUR MONEY into Social Security...

[CoffeeCat]

So how can they "cut", or take away money that is ours--and was never the government's
in the first place?

[PDJane]

1. That money was lent out, because more was going in

than out. Now, it has to be paid back, which means either more government debt OR raised taxes.

This is the whole problem in a nutshell.

[SDuderstadt]

4. SS account surpluses...

by federal law must be invested in Treasury securities. Do you think they should just let the surpluses sit there doing nothing.

[Yupster]

99. It should have gone out of the government's hands

Put the surplus in corporate bonds, muni bonds, cd's, foreign bonds.

By leaving it in the government's hands you make it a sham because you can't owe money to yourself.

It becomes not money, but accounting at that time.

[SDuderstadt]

103. It's federal law...

dude.

I don't know how many times I have to say that.

[Yupster]

105. Yes I understand

It was a bad federal law.

[spedtr90]

6. It wasn't loaned with our consent

and it must be paid back. Since Republicans are so very concerned with the debt, I suggest the debt to the American workers be paid first, by honoring those treasury bond IOU's. Social Security's money came from workers and employers. It is not part of the budget and did not cause the debt, and as such has NO place in budget talks. It belongs in debt talks only as a debt to be paid.

[SDuderstadt]

41. By law, SS account surpluses are required to be invested in...

Treasury securities. Should we have just let the money sit there?

[Yupster]

100. Or we can default and

not worry about the surplus in bonds.

Then they would have poof dissappeared.

And the funny thing is that it wouldn't make any difference to what social security pays out or doesn't pay out which just shows how meaningless the social security trust fund is.

[girl gone mad]

23. The government doesn't have to tax or borrow to spend.

There is no problem.

[boston bean]

84. They want us to pay twice for SS. So the rich can keep their tax cuts.

It's a very disgusting thing they are proposing here.

[PDJane]

89. Yes. It is.

And it's infuriating. That's exactly what they are proposing.

[Long Shadow]

97. More government debt means more interest, which is already the fastest growing budget expenditure...

Raising taxes to pay it back would result in American workers having to unfairly pay the expense of their investments twice.

Ever since the passage of the unified budget act, the government has been looting Social Security. Any "fix" must include the repeal of it; otherwise, SS is doomed.

[former9thward]

2. The money is not "ours".

It was never set up that way. SS is a transfer payment. Current workers transfer their earnings to retirees. It has always been that way since day one. You have no 'personal account' at SS with your money.

[PDJane]

3. Partly true.

however, the above is still true, as well; the government has been borrowing that money, and doesn't necessarily want to pay it back.

[dkf]

14. The government is us.

We've been borrowing our own money.

[Lasher]

33. Then we can repay our own money to ourselves.

Surely you don't object to that.

[dkf]

39. The point is it's a joke.

You borrow from your Christmas fund and call it a bond. Lol.

[Lasher]

43. I borrowed from my children's college fund to start a business.

Their grandparents willed them the money to set up the fund. My kids need to go to college now. Should I pay the money back, or should I tell them the joke's on them?

[dkf]

67. If it was in a gift to minors account you just did something illegal.

"The custodian may pay out some of the money for the child's support, if necessary, and must manage the funds reasonably. The custodian must maintain accurate records of transactions and pay over the property when the child reaches majority. A custodian is not permitted to use any of the money personally or for anyone else except the child, nor can the person commingle the property with his or her own."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Gifts+to+Minors+Act

[Lasher]

74. There is a similar law that says the Social Security Trust Fund bonds must be redeemed.

Just as in this hypothetical example where my family could owe money to itself, so it is with the Trust Fund.

You have defeated your own lameass argument.

[Yupster]

102. Do you have the money? Then pay it back

It only becomes a problem if you don't have the money to pay it back.

[girl gone mad]

57. you can't issue money (legally)...

but the federal government can. Not sure why it's so difficult for you to grasp this very basic concept.

When you borrow from your Christmas fund, you have to go out and earn or borrow more money to repay the fund. As the monopoly supplier of currency, our government is not fiscally constrained the way a person or household is.

[dkf]

68. The government is us isn't it?

[girl gone mad]

69. What does that have to do with it?

[dkf]

70. No need to differentiate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1433590&mesg_id=1433590

The Feds are constrained by inflation.

If you print money to pay the social security fund how is that not inflationary? In addition I doubt that would be the only debt they would be monetizing.

[girl gone mad]

72. How is it inflationary?

Do you also think savings accounts are inflationary?

[girl gone mad]

25. They may not want to pay it back, but they are fully capable of paying it back.

[spedtr90]

13. ours = workers

We all put money in the pot with the intent being we all get money out. It's ours. It didn't come from the government, it came from the collective us and from our employers as a benefit. It would be there for us if it had not been "borrowed". That debt should be paid back. Congress is more willing to pay the debt to China than to us.

[former9thward]

34. No it is not "ours" any more than taxes are "ours".

We pay taxes and we don't get that back. The government did not borrow the money. That is not what the SS law says. It says it will pay retirees a benefit and that benefit will be paid for by funds from current workers. If what you said was true then the government could cut you off after you received payments equal to your contributions. Most retirees get back all their contributions after just a few years of retirement. Should we cut them off because they have gotten "their" money back?

[Enthusiast]

83. Okay. What do you want to do?

Do you advocate social security benefit cuts? Do you advocate raising the retirement age? Or do you want to go whole HOG and profitize the entire thing?

[former9thward]

85. I don't advocate any of those things.

But apparently you think the only way to make a point is to build strawmen. My point is that some posters have a big misconception that they have personal accounts with SS and that the government 'can't touch them'. That is just not reality. No government, of any party, has ever promised a certain amount for SS. I think full retirement should be lowered to 62. Pay for it by closing bases around the world. And ending adventures in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.

[RaleighNCDUer]

True, but the system was devised to guarantee a certain payout

upon becoming eligible for it. There is a contractual obligation to make those payments. When somebody borrows money from you, that money is no longer yours once it leaves your hands. That doesn't mean they don't have to pay you back.

[TBMASE]

24. Fleming V Nestor, 1960

ruled that there is no contractual obligation with the taxpayer and the government with regard to social security benefits.

[Yo_Mama]

30. There isn't

As others have noted, SC has always ruled that you have no right to the money.

Not only that, SS has been cut a bunch of times, most recently by raising retirement ages. For instance, I would have to work to 67 to get full SS, which is a very substantial cut.

If you want to argue that you have a moral claim to the money, go ahead. But since the money was never saved, it is not clear that future beneficiaries who don't urgently need all of the payments have a higher moral claim to the money than say, a poor person relying on food stamps to eat.

The bit about "investing" it in Treasuries is bull. They aren't real Treasuries. They aren't securities that can be sold on the market (by law). If Congress had permitted it, the Trustees could have gone out and bought real Treasuries on the open market, and if they had been allowed to do that, then when future beneficiaries came to retire, that debt could have been sold to other holders, and the proceeds used to pay retirees. Nothing would have changed that way, because the debt would just be changing hands instead of the creation of new debt. However Congress would have had to pull back their spending a lot earlier, because Congress would have had to actually pay interest on that debt.

But that wasn't what we did. We didn't invest the money. We spent it. The special classes of Treasuries in the SS and Medicare trust funds are only assets if, when the Trustees need them, Congress can either raise taxes enough to repay the loans or Treasury can find buyers on the open market to take the debt. It is now clear that Treasury won't be able to do that for more than 10 years, because:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

If you go to that link, you'll see that as of today, debt held by the public is 9.75 trillion, and the various trust funds have 4.6 trillion, for a total of 14.34 trillion. And nominal GDP at the end of Q1 2011 (scroll down and see Table 3 at the link below):
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/txt/gdp1q11_3rd.txt

is 15 trillion. Thus, if we intend to pay that back, our government debt/GDP ratio is already 95.5%, and that is past the limit at which government debt is considered stable. Plus we are currently planning to run deficits as far as the eye can see.

Therefore, we are not going to pay that back. We have to raise taxes and trim spending, because otherwise we are Italy in five years.

I'm sorry, but you are living in a fantasy world and it is best to deal with reality.

Under current law, given today's unemployment report, disability payments to beneficiaries will have to be cut in 2017, and by 2025 Social Security payments will also be cut. So that is why these debt negotiations are so difficult - raising the official ceiling will make it clear that the United States cannot pay back its debts.

[Yupster]

104. Congress has changed the benefit formula

over and over again.

Congress will pay out whatever they feel they can and want to.

Which shows how immaterial the trust fund is.

Congress will pay what it wants to whether there is a trust fund or not.

[spooky3]

26. That is a common myth. In fact, there are "trust funds" in excess of what workers are now

paying in that can fund benefits well past those for current retirees. It's the same principle as for private sector defined benefit plans. Check out Wiki for a starter explanation.

The fact that the govt. has dipped into these funds for other purposes is a huge problem that Al Gore talked about more than 10 years ago, but the media and his opponent preferred to make fun of him instead of listen.

[former9thward]

35. It is not a myth, it is the law which set up SS.

I don't need a "starter" explanation from Wiki. I also don't go to Wiki for legal matters. It is a myth that SS is taking money in more than goes out. The reverse is true. http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/05/news/economy/social_security_trustees_report/index.htm

[spooky3]

94. Wiki's not good enough for you, but cnn.com is?

I suggest that you do a bit more research into the 1983 changes to SS law. Here, maybe you'll like this site better, as a starting point:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan5.html

Go to Lexis-Nexis if you prefer that. Or, continue to hold a mistaken view of how Social Security and defined benefit plans work.

I did not say "SS is taking money in more than goes out" in my prior post. The reverse is only true for recent years, and it was anticipated in 1983, which led to the changes to the law, including to contribution rates and taxing higher income recipients, but also many other changes--which you would know if you started with the Wiki info. What I did try to explain, and will now try again to explain, is that SS receipts over the years in excess of what was needed for current recipients have gone into a trust fund in order to pay obligations (and earn interest, etc.) for future retirees. This is the same principle used with private sector plans - actuaries determine what is needed to fully fund the plan, based on expected retirement dates, compensation, benefit formulas, etc., and contributions are made based on this determination, although orgs. may or may not meet the full funding standards, and the determination has to be updated.

The primary problem is that legislators have borrowed from this fund.

[sabrina 1]

40. It is not part of the Federal Govt's money. It IS the people's money.

It is a separate fund. The Federal Govt. used it like a piggy bank for their wars, their bailouts etc. NOW because they screwed things up so badly, they do not want to pay it back.

Not to mention that they want to privatize all public funds and will use any excuse to do so.

The people should have a NO TOLERANCE attitude towards this. Put back the money and then make it a law that the SS fund cannot be touched ever again for anything other than the purpose it was intended for.

One thing is INDISPUTABLE! SS has ZERO to do with the deficit, and no matter how they try to make it so, and they ARE trying to do that, it is a lie.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Jesus, Sabrina...

By federal law, SS account surpluses have to be invested in Treasury securities. Are you honestly saying the government should pay interest on money it can't use? The problem is not using those funds. The problem is all the GOP misadventures that make it difficult to pay SS back.

[sabrina 1]

50. Why are you asking me what I am saying when I have made it quite

clear in my post. The SS fund has nothing to do with the Federal Deficit, and if the Fed Govt screwed up and cannot pay its debts, they better find a way. They are hoping to default on their debt to the American people, and we will not stand for that.

Obama gave a little lecture to us recently, about the Fed. Budget being like a family Budget. Who was he talking to? We the people did not create the debt. THEY did. And like any family when they choose to borrow and spend, they must pay their debts. If they can't, they have to cut spending. So far, so good.

However, it is completely ludicrous to demand that the people you borrow from should pay back YOUR debt to THEM. It's almost funny for them to think we are that stupid.

What they must do now is to understand they cannot continue to live in the style they have grown accustomed to.

No more fun wars for them. They MUST end them, they have no choice, sorry. Cut the budget for their favorite hobby in half, the Pentagon. Raise taxes on those who are responsible for the economic meltdown which is the cause of most of the deficit.

Raise the cap on SS, and create jobs. No tax breaks to Corps who do not create jobs.

And, to stimulate the economy, raise SS benefits for retirees. They earned it. They will spend it.

But no way, no way, should or will the American people tolerate the total deception that is going on, the incredible lie that the people they borrowed from, should help pay their debts. Are they crazy???

If they want to default on any of their creditors, let them default on China, not the American people. We are in the exact same position as any other creditor, the American people. But the American people are the least able to afford NOT being paid back.

This charade needs to end, and if the current crop of morons can't figure it out, then fire them all and put some adults in charge. We are sick to death of their lies and greed and deceptions.

[SDuderstadt]

53. Of course...

you cannot answer the simple question I posed. If, by federal law, SS account surpluses are required to be invested in Treasury securities, why SHOULDN'T the government use that money? Why should we pay interest on money left idle?

[sabrina 1]

65. What has 'using that money' got to do with defaulting on their debt?

They can USE it, but they cannot refuse to pay it back. That investment of the SS fund in Treasury Bonds was guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US Govt. And up to now, the Fed. Govt has never defaulted on that debt, have they?? What is it that you fail to understand??

NOW what they are trying NOT to say is that they WANT to default on that debt. And they are attempting to do something even worse than defaulting, they are attempting to make their creditors pay the debt THEY owe THEM. I have never heard of anything so incredibly stupid or outrageous. I'd like to see the American people take them to court and see what happens when they try to explain this to a judge, or better yet, a jury.

If you don't get it, there is nothing I can do to help you. Clearly they have fooled you, either that or you support this heist.

[SDuderstadt]

66. Sabrina...

who says the federal government does not want to honor the treasury securities that SS holds?

Most of these "arguments" are generated by your basic lack of understanding of how our system works.

[sabrina 1]

75. And once again you simply ramble, without saying anything of

substance and insultingly assume that others don't understand all the things you, in your great wisdom simply know, but NEVER, EVER share!

And if you think it goes unnoticed that you cannot respond to facts, which I just presented to you, it does not.

We are US Govt. Creditors.

They are lying and pretending the US Govt is distributing handouts to the elderly from whom they want to take part of the repayment on the money they are now, rightfully, receiving. This is total BS.

They intend to try to make the American people pay the debt THEY owe us. Do they think we are stupid?

We are not fooled.

Let them try this on the Chinese, also like us, US Govt Creditors.


And some day maybe, you might begin to understand some of these things. But then again, probably not.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Sabrina...

you do understand that federal law requires that the treasury securities that the SS account surpluses are invested in must be redeemed, right? As usual, you've conflated several different issues and are trying to conduct two or more separate arguments into one.

Again, this is caused by your fundamental lack of understanding of how our system of government actually works.

[sabrina 1]

80. No, it is you who do not understand.

We are told constantly that the 'money is gone and cannot be retrieved'. You jumped in to attempt to somehow contradict what I was saying, which has zero to do with your way off base comments.


It seems that you are so intent on simply disagreeing with me, for some odd reason, that you don't even realize that you just made the point I already made long ago. Maybe you should develop a habit of not jumping into topics that you appear to fail to grasp a lot of the time.

It might help your understanding of what is actually being discussed if you didn't just assume, rather laughably, that you know more than anyone else on the planet, and maybe ask some intelligent questions, rather than your usual silly flame bait questions which are rarely delivered from a good faith pov, but rather with the notion that you are in a position to 'teach' people, um, well, whatever. Since you fail constantly to accomplish this goal, if I were you, I would try to figure out why I never get anywhere with people and then adapt a different attitude, like maybe being sincere for a change.

[SDuderstadt]

82. Who has said...

"the money is gone and cannot be retrieved"?

That is absolute bullshit. Please provide corroboration of that. No one has said that the government will not honor the securities held by SS.

Federal law REQUIRES that those securities be redeemed. You are making shit up again.

[Fearless]

64. The promise of money is ours actually. If we pay we are to receive.

If they destroy the program or defund it at all it is taking part or all of that promise away.

[former9thward]

76. Yes but no one has ever promised a certain amount of money.

That is just a fact and the law. That is why when you get an notice from SS about your benefits they say "estimated benefits". If Congress changes the law the benefits change.

[Fearless]

79. We were promised a livable wage... that is the purpose of the program from the beginning...

It is no longer a livable wage and it is getting worse.

[former9thward]

86. FDR never promised a "living wage".

The purpose of the program was a supplement in retirement. Who promised the living wage and when?

[Fearless]

87. It promied a livable income for those elderly who didn't or couldn't.

If you'd like to debate that have at it.

[former9thward]

88. Sure if you have any evidence of that I would like to see it.

SS as it originally was passed and signed excluded almost all women and minorities by its covered job classifications. I guess they weren't part of the "elderly who didn't or couldn't".

[Fearless]

93. Social Security Act , Sec. 1601. [42 U.S.C. 1381]

Sec. 1601. <42 U.S.C. 1381> For the purpose of establishing a national program to provide supplemental security income to individuals who have attained age 65 or are blind or disabled, there are authorized to be appropriated sums sufficient to carry out this title.


Edit to add link: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title16b/1601.htm

[former9thward]

98. Thank you for confirming exactly what I said.

SS was and is intended to be a supplement. There is nothing that any president has ever said that it is a "living wage" -- whatever you mean by that phrase.

[Fearless]

107. A living wage is the ability to live off of one's income.

At a wage below that level, one is unable to afford to live. SSA does provide a living wage. It is a supplement to what people have. HOWEVER, many people have NOTHING. It is the ONLY source of income, and therefore needs to be a living wage. This is why we have cost of living increases after all... it is a living wage.

[TBMASE]

5. SCOTUS ruled on this years ago

Social Security is a tax and you have no right to the money

[donco]

7. Do you happen

to have a link?

[TBMASE]

10. 1937 Supreme Court Ruling on Social Security

held that it is indeed a tax, falling under the taxing authority of congress. Subsequent rulings have deemed that there is no right to benefits.

[TBMASE]

15. Fleming V Nestor, 1960

is the case that said you didn't have a right to the money

[PoliticAverse]

31. Right on ssa.gov...

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

[EFerrari]

9. Tax money is our money, too. n/t

[TBMASE]

12. And you have no right to a single dime of it

which doesn't mean you don't get anything for your taxes, only that you don't have any right to the cash collected as taxes

[EFerrari]

16. Of course we do, that's why Congress has a brazillion oversight committees.

[TBMASE]

17. No, you don't have a right to a single dollar of tax money

you might benefit from the spending of tax money but you, as an individual, have no right to any monies collected by the government in the form of taxes.

[doc03]

18. So what are you getting at? You think they should cut SS

or what?

[TBMASE]

19. What I think is irrelevant to the facts as they are.

you have no right to any social security benefits, there is no contract with you as a taxpayer and the government can cut those benefits off.
That's the cold, hard truth about social security.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TBMASE]

22. Because I'm telling the truth about social security?

If the republicans get a 60 seat majority, congress and the presidency, thanks to prior rulings by the supreme court, they can do away with social security altogether.
And there will be nothing anyone can do about it.

These are the facts, ignore them at the peril of you and your children

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. But there is something we can do about it.

If they try that THIS FUCKING COUNTRY WILL BURN!

It will make the long hot summer of 67 look like an easter parade.

It would torch the cities and bring down the government. There would be blood in the Capitol.

Don't doubt it.

[TBMASE]

32. Without a government to pay social security

how would that resolve the issue?
I don't think the threat of violence really scares the republicans enough to stop what they've been trying to do since Soc Security was enacted. And you know they're just waiting to use the military against people who they disagree with them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. They aren't scared because they don't remember. They don't remember

Mussolini and Ceaucescue. They don't remember LA and Detroit burning. They don't remember. When things reach that point, the intent is not resolving the issue. It is burning down the fucking house to get rid of the cockroaches.

The lessons of the French and Russian revolutions still apply.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
John F Kennedy

[TBMASE]

37. And when they turn the guns of the US Military

who have sworn to defend this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic, are you so sure they'll lay down their arms in the name of the French and Russian Revolutions?
I certainly don't.
I don't see how burning down one's own house is productive when there are alternative means...like not running DINOs, holding Democrats feet to the fire when they have a majority for 4 years, a super majority in the senate with the presidency for 2 of those years.

I like to think we're better than a mob who destroys the country when things don't go our way.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. I'm not talking about rational responses here.

I'm just pointing out that it CAN happen here, and if they go too far it WILL happen here.

It will not be the first time.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Are you proposing a violent revolution?

Who elected you? More importantly, you are proposing insurrection. Checkout the powers of Congress.

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. No. But I can't say I'm not expecting it.

There is no more 'politics as usual'.

And 'the powers of congress' don't really mean shit when congress is running through the alleys ahead of an angry mob.

[SDuderstadt]

55. And who's going to run this...

revolution? Who elected them? You should check out the powers of Congress in the Constitution, especially the part about suppressing insurrections.

If someone takes up arms against our government, they are domestic enemies of our constitution and they should be suppressed by Congress.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

90. Take your fascist ideology elsewhere. nt

[unblock]

28. while contributors don't have a specific LEGAL right to monies contributed,

it is EXTREMELY dodgy for a government to raise money under one pretense and use it for another.

the tax technically works as a transfer of funds from workers to retirees, but that vision somewhat went away when they hiked up rates to accumulate a surplus. that surplus was sold to the public as a way to accumulate money when there were a lot of workers compared to retirees in anticipation of the boomers retiring, when there would be a lot of retirees compared to workers.

while congress has ever LEGAL right to spend the entire social security surplus on gold toilets for congressional staffers, there's a price to be paid for misappropriating funds, however legal it might be.

[Beartracks]

8. And thus, how can it be an "entitlement"? n/t

[dkf]

11. It goes straight out from you to a recipient.

Especially now that payments exceed receipts.

[Kaleva]

21. Supreme Court ruled back in 1960 that it isn't our money.

No one has a legal right to Social Security benefits.

[KoKo]

48. The Petersen Institute has F**ed with your brain....sadly.

[Kaleva]

49. No. Just going by what the Supreme Court said.

"To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and <363 U.S. 603, 604> boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_in_the_United_States#The_Supreme_Court_and_the_evolution_of_Social_Security

So, Congress expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act. This makes any argument that SS money is "our" money mute.

[bluebuzzard]

29. SS wont be there for 50 and younger

Six year old link but still relevant

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17689/No_46000_Return_for_Social_Security_Recipients.html

[doc03]

46. Do some research and find out who the Heartland Institute is

before posting their link. It is an extremist right wing (Libertarian) think tank linked to the CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation. And yes there will be no SS for people under 50 if you fall for the bullshit they put out.

[bluebuzzard]

54. question

On a purely mathematical assessment of workers paying into Social Security and retirees collecting there benefits how does it not collapse?
Other then “ Personal Accounts” what other topics seam untrue? Yes the source is a Right Wing rag but a broken clock is right twice a day.

[girl gone mad]

59. education is a hell of a thing..

try it:

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=749

[bluebuzzard]

71. ok teacher

I would agree with what he said if the US dollar wasn't the world reserve currency.

from your links home page
Leadership lacking in the US
Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2011 by bill


"In the speech he berates the Republicans for refusing to show leadership in the current budget debate. My assessment is that after reading the full speech (the video goes for 67 minutes and 5 minutes is too long) – is that the US President outlined in the most categorical terms why he shouldn’t be in charge of the largest economy in the World."

[girl gone mad]

73. Reserve currency status is irrelevent.

Check out Japan. I cross posted that article here. Agree with every word.

[bluebuzzard]

77. closing thought

Since oil is purchased in US dollar all over the world what impact would there be if we pumped a few trillion dollars into the economy. One more question before bed since I'm learning something tonight, why do we have to pay taxes just let the government print the same amount.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. Worst case scenario, the trust fund is exhausted in 26 years.

If tax rates stayed the same, benefits would be cut by 23%

More likely scenario, if taxes and benefits remained the same, the trust fund would continue to grow.

This whole sky is falling bullshit is about cutting benefits now so that they won't (maybe) be cut later. I vote for later.

At any rate, "collapse" is hyperbolic bullshit.

The real goal is to set up the conditions where the SSTF never gets redeemed. It's theft.

[madville]

44. There is no money

It disappears the minute it leaves our paychecks. The money taken out today was spent 20 years ago, it's a joke.

[girl gone mad]

62. There is always money.

It's literally impossible for a sovereign currency government to run out of money and there's absolutely no reason for a sovereign currency regime to "save" its own fiat.

[madville]

92. They can produce as much money as they want

It will just be worth less. Inflation or devaluation is kind of a backdoor way to cut debt.

[KoKo]

47. K&R....It was our own personal insurance policy...that we paid for...backed by our Government..

Deposited in our Government Accounts to gain interest from the time we got our first job we paid into until our last work day.

[Kaleva]

63. It's a social insurance policy that Congress can cancel at any time. We have not rights to it.

[deaniac21]

51. They can do anything they want to do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Yes and no.

The trust fund belongs to the workers who paid in to it.

Unfortunately, the government (read: Goldman Sachs) gets to decide what the benefits are and what tax rates apply. They could make the benefits zero if they aren't worried about the consequences.

That doesn't mean it isn't stealing. It simply means that they can get away with it if the public lets 'em.

[Fearless]

58. They can't. They are trying to rob our retirement funds to pay the wealthy.

And we need to stop them. Democrat or Republican. Anyone who tries needs to be removed from office. There is no consequence worse than starting down this slippery slope.

[EstimatedProphet]

81. Because they're thieves

If they take SS and do anything with it short of investing it in T-bills as it is done right now, they are STEALING.

[lovuian]

95. yes they violated the TRUST of the American people

they are thieves

[bvar22]

91. Despite the persistent myths at DU,

Obama does indeed have a Magic Wand.

He uses it all the time,
like changing "Combat Troops" into "Non-Combat Troops".
POOF!...just like that!
See, its EASY.

Changing your money into their money is just as easy.
SEE: The Great Wall Street Bailout.

[somone]

101. He also vaporized public option

and negotiable drug prices

[RB TexLa]

96. every discussion about being childfree on here I'm told that other people's children

will "Have to pay for your God damn social security," so apparently only those with children have paid their money in.

[SDuderstadt]

106. Actually...

SS is also funded with an employer contribution.