|
CA Bill
1/13/2009 2:18 PM | WHAT SS funds? They have already all been stolen in the past by Congress. Remember Al Gore's "lockbox?" It was non-existent then! What is paid in now is being used to pay current benefits. |
|
T-roy
1/13/2009 2:56 PM | The FY 2008 Presidential Budget projected $2.662 trillion in revenue for FY 2008. One-fourth of this revenue was from payroll taxes that were supposed to go towards future Social Security benefits. Since these benefits weren't needed, the government stole from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for other costs. $674 BILLION was stolen from Social Security in the FY 2008 Budget. |
|
take a stand
1/13/2009 3:43 PM | "Google" Social Security and the Queen of England. You will find that the "Queen" has amended our Social Security. Why? Because it belongs to her,a debt that was made many years ago,we are still paying it through our Social Security. Our Government borrows it back from her with interest,lots of interest!!! Research it,you will see! it's scary!! |
|
T-roy
1/14/2009 6:25 AM | She says it, therefore it must be true? There are no sources, let alone legitimate sources. She is a conspiracy theorist and the second article on the page talks about how the Mexican Government is trying to take over the USA. There are also links regarding the Illuminati, the current status of the USA as a British colony, and satanism. She's a wingnut. Don't believe everything you read.
FOREIGN RELATIONS |
|
jcantine
1/14/2009 6:32 AM | The Soc Security system was designed with the idea that it would encounter deficits. Deficits are supposed to be offset by surpluses from good years. In recent years, we've had many more surplus years than deficit years. If these surpluses had been invested (or even buried under the Washingtom Mall) they'd be available to offset the coming projected deficits. But, as other comments show, it's been government policy for years to take Soc Sec surpluses and "absorb" (i.e. steal) them to pay for general operating funds, pay the national debt, etc. No matter what you do to fix Social Security, it won't matter if every surplus is taken away - then any deficit, no matter how small, will be a crisis. Any solution to the Social Security crunch MUSTÂ start by protecting the surpluses - otherwise we're just funding other government programs with Soc Sec taxes. |
|
Gilly
1/14/2009 12:28 PM | I think the first priority should be to return every dime ever taken out of the SS fund., and then that fund should become absolutely untouchable. I see no difference between an embezzler or union employee stealing money out of a corporate pension plan, and a government putting its hands in the cookie jar. That money should be sacred.  It belongs to the generations that put it there. Whatever it is being taken out for, other than benefits, is something we can't afford.  E.g., should we go to Iraq or re-fund social security? Re-fund social security is the correct answer. Should we go to Mars or re-fund Social Security? etc. |
|
MrBiz
1/14/2009 12:40 PM | Every time someone says that the government has to cut these entitlement programs I hear that they want to spend the money elsewhere. I say that if the social security entitlement is cut, a corresponding piece of legislation must be passed that prohibits the deduction of Social Security from peoples' income.
President Clinton proved that our budget can show a surplus without taking the social security money. If the government kept its' sticky fingers out of OUR social security contributions there would be enough money in there right now to give our elderly and disabled a pension that would be enough to actually live on. This was the reason that the social security withholding was doubled in, IÂ think it was 1983. This was to make sure that the baby boomers would have ample funds for their benefit. Instead there is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund, only worthless I.O.U.s from the Treasury Department. These I.O.U.s are, by legislation, Special Treasury Notes that can only be redeemed by the government, unlike normal Treasury Bills. |
|
whiteowlmt@yahoo.com
1/14/2009 12:44 PM | If the Government would keep it's fingers 'out' of the social security fund, the fund would contain approximately $3 trillion dollars more than it does currently. Both the Clinton administration and the G.W. Bush administration removed $1+ trillion from the social security fund, leaving in its place an IOU. If social security recipients were receiving their just amount, that amount would be roughly $900.\month more than is currently being received. |
|
Charlescmt
1/14/2009 1:07 PM | Â Agree totally. Â Nearly 30 some years of stealing all those surpluses. Â If a private company did that the board of directors (congress) and CEO (President) would all go to jail.
REMEDY - As should have been done in the past, invest the remaining 8 or 9 Â years of surpluses into funding toll roads & bridges which yield revenue for social security. Â The approach would be to offer money FREE to various cities building toll roads/bridges in return for a permanent cut of the revenues. This gives cities free capital for needed infrastructure and SS gets a long term income stream to help cover the deficits that will arise when us boomers retire. |
|
sanway
1/14/2009 1:32 PM | Once we end the war in Iraq, we ought to take the money we have been spending over there and divert it to Social Security. The elderly in this country have paid their dues and deserve the financial support of their government. If we are willing so spend billions on foreign soil, why are we not willing to spend it on our senior citizens! |
|
Heavy
1/14/2009 1:51 PM | Im in agreement with sanway, we have wasted a lot of money on a war we should have never been involved in. I agree the 10 Billion dollars a month being spent on the war should be spent on rebuilding the social security funds. Also the cost of living is getting higher and social security for the eldely are not going up fast enough. Give the elderly a 25% increase on their SS income. |
|
mikid
1/14/2009 1:52 PM | Social Security Trust Funds: Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in " special-issue" securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund.
The government "borrows" from the Social Security fund and promises to pay it back. The funds should be protected and not available to the government to borrow and spend as part of the general fund. |
|
caresalot
1/14/2009 2:16 PM | I'm in full agreement with sanway and Heavy. Use the money saved on the war to refund our Social Security and then make it sacred. Touching it for any reason should result in criminal charges for theft.  Also, we should be receiving Social Security cost of living increases that are actually in keeping with the current cost of living. Furthermore, we should not be taxed on our social security earnings. It only adds insult to injury. We seniors are taking it in the shorts after slaving our lives away so we could retire in comfort. |
|
not available
1/14/2009 4:14 PM | I agree with mikid comments. The lockbox idea was a good one but the congress realized that they could not fund special projects if the social security funds were off limits to the general fund. Protect the SS tax so it is utilized properly - to fund retirement of citizens who paid into it. Additionally, tighten up the guidelines so non citizens do not have same access as citizens |
|
executioner
1/14/2009 4:15 PM | in a country where we are having trouble taking care of our elderly and diabled, why should MY social security dollars,that I work hard to earn, be spent on ILLEGAL immigrants, who dont want to work at all! I thought ILLEGAL was ILLEGAL. Or does that only apply in cases that the government deems illegal, or that they say is illegal. THE LAW IS THE LAW, and should apply to ALL people equally, REGARDLESS OF THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN!  |
|
ChiLady
1/14/2009 9:13 PM | We need to hold the Social Security Board Members responsible and accountable for any shortages or deficits in Social Security. They were put on the Board to protect and watch over the Funds. We should demand an explanation from Henry Paulson, Sect. of Treasury (can you believe it--this guy screwed us on SS funds and on the bailout funds, and he is still there!), Elaine Chao, Sect. of Labor, Michael Leavitt, Sect. of Health & Human Svcs. and the gutless wonder, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. Clinton left a Social Security surplus, were these poor excuses for members just sitting there while Bush emptyed out the fund? I guess we can't put all the blame on Bush since Congress was supposed to be the Guardian of the Fund. Now, we need to demand the return of the "borrowed" funds and then demand government keep their damn hands off of it and let the taxpayer select other Guardians since Congress has done such a lousy job of it. Put Social Security funds in a SEPARATE Account all its own and keep it out of the hands of  all politicians and the Wall Street Robber Barons. I worked for 47 years of my life and now that I am old, sick and poor I am supposed to live on what Congress deems is enough. Let all our politicians live on a $1,000 a month so they can see how tough it is. Maybe if we, as taxpayers, voted all politicians can only draw what we receive on Social Security we would see how fast they would change Social Security. |
|
makaleka
1/14/2009 9:51 PM | Congress and other politicians keep saying that Social Security will run out by a certain date. The thing that is NOT SAID is that Congress keeps using the Social Security Trust funds to fund other things, including bridges to nowhere, etc. This is not OK. No reform is needed for the Social Security System EXCEPT to make it off limits to Congress, the Treasury, and any other politicians who want to rob the fund blind. Just think, if Congress had followed Bush's idea of privatizing Social Security and setting up funds for people to invest in their own retirements, these funds would have all been defunct by now based on how the stock market has been going in the past several months, not to mention the Ponzi schemes of some white collar criminals in the form of businessmen. The reason for Checks and balances is to insure that temptations are not put on the table for all of us to fall for at some point. No one is above temptation. We all get tempted some times. We all have to battle our own demons and overcome them and build our own characters, which is anyone has when each of us dies. |
|
Frostbite
1/16/2009 8:40 AM | Face Social Security is a bigger "ponzi" scheme than Madoff. The government takes that money but hasn't funded the pot with it. |
|
Cleve
1/16/2009 11:55 AM | |
|
eded
1/16/2009 9:21 PM | Social Security is an mandatory insurance plan that taxes only the middle class and poor. The rich pay very little S.S. tax. We magnanamous poor people didn't want to burden the rich when S.S. was started. So there is a cap at about $100,000.00. But now that Robots have become a big labor force it has upset the demographics of the Ponzi scheme.Â
The way to maintain solvency in the S.S. trust fund is to eliminate the un-american distinction between earned and un-earned income. Un-earned income pays no S.S. tax. Un-earned income is robotic income. Since the robots have taken so many jobs they could at least be asked to help pay workers retirement now.
If you eliminate the ceiling on S.S. taxes the rate could be cut, this would help working poor, middle class, and small business. See my post titled "Tax The Robots"
|
