as time goes by

51 replies [Last post]
SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as
income.

Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
-----

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
-

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.

Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ ---------
---------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take
your Social Security away!

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Take your pick

FactCheck debunks lies about Social Security LINK

or

Snopes debunks lies about Social Security LINK

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
You are absolutely correct

Social Security was never meant to be voluntary. It was meant to be exactly what it is, a tool used to insure the party power is maintained by enslaving people with another Government entitlement.

That's why any idea of privatization is met with force from the Democrats. Much like welfare and now unemployment handouts SSI is and has been used as a baseball bat to scare the intended market.

That being said Social Security was sold as a "lockbox" idea that you put money in and at retirement you would receive that money back. That "lockbox" was raided and the monies put into the general fund. In other words they stole it.

Now SSI is broke. Last year SSI paid out more then it took in. A FULL FIVE YEARS before it was predicted. By 2020 just 10 years away this ponzi scheme will be hit by the full force of the boomer generation and the disparity of funding will exponentially increase. Placing a strain on an already taxed system thus many experts believe either a massive tax to pay out it "promise" or a dissolution of the program.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Social Security

Social Security is a government insurance program funded through payroll taxes. FICA taxes collected are insurance premiums that protect workers and their families against loss of income resulting from retirement.

That's not "enslavement"

Social Security has enough money in the Social Security Trust Fund to pay full benefits until the year 2041. Thereafter, Social Security revenues will still be sufficient enough to pay 78 percent of benefits.

That's not "broke".

The baby boomer generation (those born 1946-1964) have just now begun retiring. Their average life expectancy is about 75 years. This life expectancy age will not rise appreciably in the foreseeable future, virtually all gains in average life expectancy in the US come from fewer children dying. In any event, the vast majority of the baby boom generation will have died off by the year 2039, which should allow for the resumption of 100% benefits.

normal
normal's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2009
Thanks Chris

I finally read something decent on this site.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Bacon & The Trust Fund

But isn't the Trust Fund a myth? Isn't it simply a bunch of IOUs from the Treasury as the real funds were diverted and spent otherwise? Just askin'.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Trust fund IOUs
AtHomeGym wrote:

But isn't the Trust Fund a myth? Isn't it simply a bunch of IOUs from the Treasury as the real funds were diverted and spent otherwise? Just askin'.

Gym, I am hesitant to discuss the intricacies of government accounting methods (I'm fond of saying the only course I ever dropped out of in college was "Government Accounting").

There's an excellent article HERE which documents how opponents of social security have been using the "IOUs" claim for over 70 years. It also addresses the "Ponzi scheme" claim made above. I particularly like the analogy of the SS Trust Fund to a one dollar bill: both are legal government obligations back by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

I also like this opinion column by Paul Krugman LINK which succinctly summarizes the two ways to look at social security, as part of the general federal budget or as a separate and independent entity. There are pros and cons to both. Krugman shows how some people (most recently, Alan Simpson), deliberately cherry pick the "cons" of each school of thought to arrive at a preconceived "bankrupt" conclusion.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Interesting but still a ponzi scheme

OK, now that I have swiped my monitor twice trying to kill your bug......

The only way SS can "work is through two obvious means:

A)Mandatory, forced participation. Unlike other ponzis, SS isn't voluntary. This enables the money to keep flowing in.
B)New "investors" pay the old off, and in inflated money

Krugman-a big-time liberal if there ever was one-and others who defend SS seem to miss the whole point of the above and are in serious denial. If what they continually claim was true, having an opt-out SS option to people today wouldn't disrupt SS and force it to collapse. The reality is it would collapse very rapidly without the new money coming in to pay off the older workers. THAT is 100% a ponzi scheme and the govt would throw anyone like a Madoff and others in jail on numerous FRAUD charges.

Krugman and CO. will never address what would happen if SS had an opt-out option because they'd have to admit the whole thing would fail and then it would be very clear to all that "new pays the old." WHat also hastens the problem is that you also have "new paying people who never paid a dime into SS themselves."

The IOU issue is more a case about what idiotic, lying politicians do when they see a large sum of money sitting somewhere: they take it as fast as they can shovel it. having a large pile of money sitting around near politicians is like showing up at an AA meeting with cases of beer and vodka: it's going to disappear. The argument that "oh well, it's the same as all the other debt the US has, it's backed by the government" is hardly any solace when it's actually NOT backed by the US government, it's backed by any other government that will accept our huge debt that is growing and growing.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Bacon & Accounting

Well I did take 2 Accounting courses in college but now when I look at all that stuff, it makes my head hurt! From a personal perspective, I don't like "forced contribution" and wouldn't care if I never saw another penny of Social Security. Could make a song up that says "Got along without it before I got it, I can get along without it now!

maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
Nonexistent trust fund

Read your own snopes link, sniffy. "So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security..."

And they have spent it - every penny.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Maximus - sadly

Sadly, it's worse than this. The government is monetizing the debt. What does this mean? Well since the government prints money, they simply issue debt and buy it back. Yes, that’s right they buy back their own debt. But they want you to believe that only the Chinese buy our debt so we can focus on them as our threat. Nope our threat is right here at home.

They are about to “inflate” the money supply again on November 3rd, only about 1 trillion or so. The FED has gotten us between a rock and a hard place.

1 trillion, just like last time when Mr. Obama came on board. It’s handy when you have the power of the printing press to buy back your own debt. If it sounds familiar it’s because they call it counterfeiting.

Collegiate accounting may not have been Bacon’s forte and given his public postings he has not improved this understanding since leaving college. The country is BROKE and things are going to get worse before they get better, much worse. This election won't stop it either no matter the outcome.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
PTCObs: You brought your "A" game tonight

Well said! I sadly can agree.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GYM

Doesn't banks primarily only have pieces of signed paper for their assets?

Much of it right now worth 30-40% less than they loaned!

SS bonds pay interest and have always.

I trust USA more than banks!!!!

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
CHR & Banking Practices

What you say may be true but I suspect in most cases there is some sort of collateral involved--unless they're just really dumb bankers.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GYM

Two things: Homes; and Commercial Loans

Banks loaned sometimes at 120% of then home value which was very soon by deflation of home prices up to 150%.
Along with loaning someone making $35,000 a year, buying a $215,000 home!

The worst part being, was then those terrible loans were bunched as a product and sold to others, who sold them to others.
DUMB BANKERS?

Commercial:

They loaned developers far too much out front with the land as assets.
Then loaned them more while all of the first ones were sitting empty!

The developers had no income so couldn't pay the bank. Even then the banks re-financed the loan and the interest added!!

DUMB BANKERS!!

They weren't dumb. Just wanted their millions fast and out.

I think you know all this but want to justify it.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
About that "FULL FIVE YEARS"....
Observerofu wrote:

Last year SSI paid out more then it took in. A FULL FIVE YEARS before it was predicted.

This is correct, however, it does not tell the whole story.

In 2010, mostly as a result of high unemployment resulting from the worst recession since the 1930s, FICA taxes collected did not cover social security expenditures for the year. This is expected to continue into 2011.

However, as the economy improves and baby boomers reach peak earning years prior to retirement, the social security administration predicts surplus balances from 2012 to 2014, at which time the system begins to draw down surpluses (as planned) when boomers begin to retire. LINK

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
SSI is broke!

money was/is moved to the general fund , IOU's are all that is left behind. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme on the grandest scale! Read this :http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09/TheNationalPonziScheme.htm-GP

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
link
maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
Why do liberals refuse to believe this?

There is NO MONEY in the social security trust fund. The change under my car seat is worth more than the entire fund. Congress has spent ALL excess contributions EVER collected.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
They can't help it!

It's genetic: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/weird/Scientists-May-Have-IDd-Liberal-Ge... It can however be changed by learning the truth! -GP

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
"full faith and credit"
Georgia Patriot wrote:

money was/is moved to the general fund , IOU's are all that is left behind. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme on the grandest scale! Read this :http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09/TheNationalPonziScheme.htm-GP

What part of "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government" do you choose not to understand?

Congress has made mistakes and shown poor judgment in the past, but the one thing they have never...EVER..done is renege on a government bond.

The reason for that is quite simple: if the government reneged on any debt obligation, it would no longer be able to borrow money on the open market.

Now, you may opine that these "IOUs" have no value, but that's an opinion not supported by reality.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Do you understand what is happening?

Here is the real "reality", not an opinion, read and learn: http://www.chrismartenson.com/martensonreport/shell-game-how-federal-res... -GP

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
In case you did not read the article

this sums it up: "The shell game that the Fed is currently playing does not change the basic equation: Money is being printed out of thin air so that it can be used to buy US government debt." Printing money to pay your own debt, sounds good, can you are I do that? Wake up America! -GP

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
GP, seriously?

Do you seriously expect me to trust anything that comes out of the mouth of peak-oil "doomer" Chris Martenson?

That huckster has been preaching a world-wide fantasy collapse gospel (and hawking survivalist kits) for more years than I can remember.

Feel free to head for the mountains with your arms cache, potable water and gold bars. You can shout "WOLVERINES!" at the full moon too. I'll pass.

(I'd bet you own an autographed copy of World Made By Hand)

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Bacon

Don't talk any of those guys who have food for a year, scores of guns and ammo, and bottled water, either in their house or in the mountains, out of doing that.

Why? Because I want to know exactly where to go to get what I need if the time comes! We could swarm those silly places like yellow-jackets on an apple.

I haven't checked on that lady and group in the western mountain tunnel lately. but I'll bet their food is stale and guns won't fire. Must have been there 60-70 years. Oh, I'll bet they are all dead by now. Or did they get on the tail of Halley's Comet?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Did the fact that you said we have all the guns escape you

come get some if you think you can.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Oh, another location just in case for us

The food is probably catfish and cornbread, but OK!

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Bacon

Patriot and a few others are convinced that Social Security CASH money should be piled up somewhere to pay off SS!
Someone has to go in there every month with huge trucks and many laborers to count out what is needed that month, put it into a bank, and then write out checks to those on SS!
Meanwhile for 30 days, those guys and trucks are loading up next month's payments.

They also think that the same thing happens in another hidey-hole for cash
to use to pay all government bills.

If they would just stop that, loan out the money at a good interest rate, they wouldn't have to borrow that cave full of cash from China and others!

Economics and finance are two of our best sciences, I mean Arts!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon - faith and credit

Full faith and credit of the United States used to mean something in the world, sadly due to our out of control spending, money printing (monetizing the debt), and debt generation it just doesn't have that old zing that it use to. You just have to travel outside the U.S.of A. and you will find this fact out.

Bacon you live in a bygone era.

You had better have a lot of faith because the credit is running out fast.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Taking by force is robbery

If a Party that hands out entitlements and then threatens that they will be lost if "they" are not re-elected that is slavery.

There is no trust fund there is NO MONEY. Unlike most ponzi schemes which are voluntary Social Security is taken from us and we have no say in the matter.
I hear from liberals all the time how popular Social Security is. If something is popular it does not have to be mandated. Under a voluntary system it would not survive. Why because we all know that we can handle our money better than the Government can.

Money is simply transfered from one generation and then given to another. The tipping point was reached last year we no longer take in more then we give out and that is not going to change. Unless we cease a majority of spending SS will not last. We can save the system and keep the promise or we will simply continue the course we are on the the train is derailed.

Which do you think will happen?

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
Chris

I am surprised that when you call SS an insurance program it didn't receive a challenge. In my opinion it certainly isn't like any insurance policy a rational person would go out and voluntary purchase

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
SQPR

Even the Constitution has been amended several times!

I'm sure glad no body listened to Bush about putting Social Security funds into the stock market on Wall Street! Be half gone now. At least the federals are paying Interest on what they borrowed from SS! More than it was making in the public arena!

If the government stopped deductions for SS on everyone, half or more wage earners who are just getting by would not pay into it and have NOTHING at retirement!

Some just insist that unfortunate people have nothing so they can look better with their inheritances and good luck.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Yo Outhouse, I mean CHR$

You pay any attention to what the stock market has historically done and what it is doing in the past couple of years? Since Bush left office, Wall Street has done quite well, and even some of the real dogs(banking) in the financial sector have rebounded back to their overly-inflated valuations.

Here's an investing tip: you can't "lose" or "gain" until you actually sell off your investments. Those who panic-sold paid the price and those who held on have seen their investments rebound nicely.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Nuclear Outhouse

The stock market as a whole is still down about one-third from it's high!

Some may have done OK by holding but look at the interest they lost. If they had invested better, say bonds, they would be about 10-15% better off.

And no, you haven't lost until you sell, but if you don't earn enough on the sale to pay you interest for the held period---you lose.

No excuse exempts Bush % blossoms from this catastrophe. Took Bush eight years to make it----may take someone twenty to resolve it!

Much of those assets are gone forever. Hope you weren't one who owned stock in any failed bank and held it!

Another thousand banks yet to fail who are calling assets that which is worth half, maybe, when foreclosed.

President Obama didn't do that! He actually stopped a lot more foreclosures.
Looks like however some congressmen will pay the price next week for being dumb or didn't care due to the enormous profits being generated that weren't there!

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
CHR & Outhouse

If Congress had listened and acted in 2004 when they were told that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac needed reining in, maybe, jest maybe, things wouldn't have been so bad. Thanks a lot, Barney Frank.

swac
swac's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2007
Who to blame

George W, Bush was the President in 2004 and Dennis Hastert was the Speaker of the House. Both Republicans.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
swac & blame

I got the yr wrong--it was 2006 & Frank assumed his lead financial duties in Feb 2007--and still did nothing.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
GYM

I think 2007 was about when the recession started!
Barney would sure have to have been fast to cause this mess that year!

Quit blaming the other party. You did it!

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Stock Market is False!

Wait until the Fed stops proping it up. 5,000 Dow, here we come. -GP

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Patriot

I'll be darned you said something correct for once!!

If the banks had not been "propped up" last year we would be in a severe Depression now.

I mean nearly shut down.

It seems that is still what some wanted to happen--just as it did in 1929!

Darn, he has been reading my stuff!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
CPB - News Flash

The money is not there. The country is broke. How can you not get this?

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Observer

We will just have to raise your taxes Observer!

Or maybe put a huge tax on oil pumped!

Add $15,000 tax to every new car purchased over 3000 pounds.

Just keep the oil in Iraq and sell it to the world market. They owe us billions anyway. Iraq is already selling it.

Let the Afghans raise poppies (help them) and we control it's price with a 100% mark-up. Afghans have never stopped selling it.

Add a federal surcharge on any electronic gadget of 100% that costs over $200.

Require all "cruise" ships that aren't registered here to be registered here and pay millions each year to Federal government in order to charge our citizens to eat like elephants, and buy trinkets.

Sell California, North and South Dakota, Arizona, and Alabama and Mississippi to the highest bidder for gold.

scribbler
scribbler's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/01/2007
SPQR---

One more original FICA thought...

Was---
that the Social Security Account Numbers (SSAN) would NOT be used as a national identification scheme...

Go figure

Have a good day

T-Man
T-Man's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/16/2006
SPQR Continues to mis-lead the readers

The truth is hard to come by when you drink too much of one parties kool aid. The post you put up is a total lie. Can we not search for the truth ourselves without being led by a leash of lies? SPQR here is the truth hopefully it will set you free. Be an independent thinker and not a political party hound.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Social Security

Conservative Republicans opposed Social Security when it was enacted in 1934. But soon most Republicans accepted Social Security and other new Deal measures and moved on. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, recognized that most Americans found Social Security to be a very good program and did not challenge it.

There were some ultra-conservatives who never accepted Social Security or any of the other progressive social programs on the 20th Century. These ultra-conservatives thought FDR was a socialist, perhaps a communist, and continued to rage and fume. But they were ignored or rejected by the mainstream of the Republican Party.

But the ultra-conservatives, like cock roaches, never really went away. Now they have been given a wider audience by Glenn Beck, Fox News, etc. So now their lies are being accpted by many innocent or ignorant Americans.

It is sad that we have to re-argue debates of the last century.

Just a few points:

Social Security has never been voluntary.

Social Security is not broke.

Social Security has run surpluses which are invested by law in U.S. Government securities. Your social security contributions are not put under a mattress (lock box). They are invested in conservative U.S. Government securities to provide income to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Social Security contributions are not put into the U.S. Government General Fund.

The Federal Government uses the Social Security Trust Fund investments to fund other programs. But the Federal Government must repay to the Social Security Trust Fund its investments plus interest. Just like they pay you for buying a U.S. Savings Bond.

Social Security is a wonderful program. It kept my parents out of poverty during their later years.

Social Security is a basic support for the middle class. Those that want to destroy Social Security are destroying the middle class in America.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Social Security is not broke?

I'm curious then, why is threshold age for this benefit creeping higher?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lion - You're right!

Social Security is not broke but the entire nation is broke. So where does that leave your beloved social program(s)?

You clearly don't understand the state of our nation if you really believe there is a Social Security "fund". You and millions of others like you have bought into a government sham. It's a shell game pal.

This house of cards will be coming down soon, so don't depend on the government. If you do you're going to get very hungry.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Some sound parental advice on SS

"Son, don't count on seeing a dime of social security money when you get old." That was from about 35 years ago to me. Words to definitely live by.

You bring up the most relevant point about SS: when the entire government is broke, is going further into debt to itself and everyone else, how can any "fund" or "program" be in any way solvent? It IS a shell game, dressed up all nice to try and keep people from looking too closely.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Secure Social Security?

Lion Stated: "The Federal Government uses the Social Security Trust Fund investments to fund other programs. But the Federal Government must repay to the Social Security Trust Fund its investments plus interest. Just like they pay you for buying a U.S. Savings Bond." And what happens if there is not enough money to repay these "investments" (there isn't)? Do we continue to borrow? Will China continue to buy our debt? Will we just print more money? Why do you think the SS funds are being "invested"(stolen?) in the first place? All Ponzi schemes work great as long as they are expanding, the FACT is they all crash when not expaining. Many americans are being fooled. -GP

maximus
maximus's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2007
Where will they get the money, lion?

Lion:

Quote:

But the Federal Government must repay to the Social Security Trust Fund its investments plus interest.

First of all, the federal government doesn't invest - it spends. Second, where do you think the money is going to come from to "pay back" the ss fund money that they spent? They either sell more debt (suck more capital out of the REAL economy, or as PTC Observer has pointed out, start monetizing the debt(printing more money).

Of course they can also just renege on all the promises that have been made, and/or raise the tax rate higher than the already outrageous 15.3% which will buy a few more years.

swac
swac's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2007
The National Debt

Folks our monetary system is based on debt.
There is a youtube site that everyone should watch. Its a bit long but well worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cq9yEVcGIU

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Maximus" SS

I find it hard to believe that people don't understand the loan to the USA from SS.
The USA IS PAYING interest to the SS fund for what they borrowed.

If the time comes (which will be solved before then) when more is needed from SS than is there in cash, then the USA will borrow it from someone else to pay SS!

They sell US BONDS all of the time!

We currently pay approximately 8% interest out of the budget for all we owe.

Most citizens pay much higher than 8% interest on their income for debt!

A house alone is between 4-8%! Credit Cards---don't ask!

Don't you know all this or are you "using" it as an excuse to quibble?

Recent Comments