Home Main Forums General Discussion They stole SS money then claimed a funding problem

  • sonofspy777 (146 posts)
    Profile photo of sonofspy777 Donor

    They stole SS money then claimed a funding problem

    The Social Security Trust Fund should currently have $2.5 trillion in surplus. So how is it that these checks could stop being issued if the debt ceiling isn’t raised? Economics professor Dr. Allen Smith, author of The Looting of Social Security: How The Government is Draining America’s Retirement Account, has been reporting on the theft of Social Security funds for years. As he sums it up:

    “The government’s $2.5 trillion debt to Social Security is the real reason that so many politicians want to cut benefits. They are trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted money…. Given the fact that much of the surplus revenue from the 1983 payroll tax hike ended up in the pockets of the super rich in the form of income tax cuts, I propose a special tax on this group of taxpayers to recoup the missing Social Security money. The government used revenue from the Social Security payroll tax hike to fund tax cuts for the rich because that was where the money was. I think the government should recover the ‘embezzled’ money by taxing the rich.”

    http://alexanderhiggins.com/how-your-social-security-money-was-stolen-where-did-the-2-5-trillion-surplus-go/

     

    https://ppjg.me/2010/07/16/social-security-money-stolen-by-government/

    Time to fight this bullshit of SS being in trouble!

    Pastiche, farleftlib, Phlem and 43 othersMarym625, iggy, Enthusiast, Gryneos, slay, Tuesday, snot, Utopian Leftist, ThinkingANew, ChefEric, Common good, Dragonfli, glinda, Scuba, hypergrove, 7wo7rees, Grey, Scott Crowder, jwirr, Haikugal, 12-Bar Blues, HomerRamone, leftcoastmountains, disillusioned73, aspirant, Doremus Jessup, ozoneman, Flying Squirrel, tokenlib, Katashi, Two way street, djean111, bemildred, Punxsutawney, NV Wino, nevereVereven, twenty, Iwalani88, A little weird, closeupready, PADemD, B Calm, vanflower like this
         

    Fiat justitia, pereat coelum!

    (The truth, tho' Heaven falls!)   - John Quincy Adams

        Bernie_2


You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
28 replies
    • vanflower (423 posts)
      Profile photo of vanflower

      1. Where's that "lock box"

      Haven’t heard anything since 2000.

      Obama had the chance to end the Bush tax cuts all he had to was nothing. The money is gone forever.

       

      • duckpin (4216 posts)
        Profile photo of duckpin Donor

        3. Yes you are correct: 0bama could not be trusted even to do nothing!

        "The justness of individual land right is  not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged "
      • disillusioned73 (425 posts)
        Profile photo of disillusioned73 Donor

        14. Ughhhh…

        don’t remind me.. that was the moment Bernie fully won me over – remember his attempted fillubuster on the floor.. what was it, 8 hours..

        Damn it Obama – so much political capital wasted..

        "Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats." - Bernie Sanders
        • Marym625 (24885 posts)
          Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

          24. Just sick and tired of the games

          Truly sick of it.

          "Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier,  it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian  
    • duckpin (4216 posts)
      Profile photo of duckpin Donor

      2. That's been my understanding and I believe it's true. Thanks for the OP

      because people need to learn the facts about Social Security.

      Here’s another fact: The Social Security Administration administers the basic pension part of the system at less than 1% over head – among the most efficient in the world plus we get good service. If a person has his/her 401K account at a brokerage, a common practice, they will charge a 1% fee just to keep in on the books. In other words, if you have a %100,000 account, you will be charged $1000 just for keeping it there – no active management involved, all that is extra. It’s a total giveaway of workers’ money to the financial class.

      "The justness of individual land right is  not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged "
      • Punxsutawney (1624 posts)
        Profile photo of Punxsutawney Donor

        4. Back when Bush Jr. was doing the privatize Social Security tour.

        The company I worked for was working with one of the major investment banks on a project and one of the people we were working with was asked about SS privatization.

        His Quote:  “It’s going to be great for us, but you guys are going to get screwed!”

        This is why the Rethugs and the leadership of the Dems want to ruin it. So all that money can be shifted to their patrons on Wall Street. They will skim, and we will get all the risk of the “free” market if not careful.

        Historically, the most logical long term investment for a program like Social Security would be medium term treasuries. So why the hell do we need a middleman skimming a percentage off the top. And with fiat currency, the government can always make up the shortfall by printing. With much less risk of inflation than many would have you believe.

         

        To neoliberals, everyone and everything are disposable. -  Chris Hedges  “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness" - J.K. Galbraith
        • duckpin (4216 posts)
          Profile photo of duckpin Donor

          5. I agree – How can a parasitical middleman add value to a system that

          is very efficient? They can’t; but, they also can’t say what it is: Looting.

          Thanks for the quote – a rare moment of candor from an insider.

          "The justness of individual land right is  not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged "
      • vanflower (423 posts)
        Profile photo of vanflower

        6. Yeah, they deliberately cause a program to fail, then say we must privatize it

        Similar thing going on with the Post Office claims that it is bankrupt, totally BS.  The political parties are collaborating mafia gangs intent on looting the USA taxpayers.

        I hope there is a way we can get our utilities back into gov. hands, they were better run, managed and efficient before the great de-regulation and privatization beginning in 80s by Reagan – incidentally BO’s most admired politician.  WTF – how could Reagan be any real D’s admired politician – fucking crazy.

        • duckpin (4216 posts)
          Profile photo of duckpin Donor

          7. The Post Office Department was one of the world's premier national

          postal services. Two things among many: The Post Office operated a banking system that brought honest banking services to those without it and brought banking services to those who did not want to deal with the for-profit banks. And, the Post Office, starting with FDR, employed African Americans at a rate  above their % in the general population. I saw one article that referred to a study that in 1949, approx. 25% of the middle class African American families had a wage earner working for the Post Office Department.

          We both know the sad details successive administrations have inflicted on the now semi=privatized US Postal Service down to what they can and cannot sell to make money and what services they can and cannot offer. Like you say, the USPS is set up to fail, turned completely private, looted, and the hollowed out hulk abandoned with the tax payers left to pay to put it back together.

          Privatization really got going under Reagan but it was Carter who pushed for, and got, the elimination of the Interstate Commerce Commission. This was a huge blow to rational state controlled commerce and things have never recovered.

          As for 0bama’s love affair with all things Reagan, it’s enough to acknowledge it, and shake our heads at what could have been, what was promised, and what was inflicted on us.

          And, yes, public utilities got a better job done at less cost than these profiteering schemes.

          "The justness of individual land right is  not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged "
          • vanflower (423 posts)
            Profile photo of vanflower

            12. Duckpin, glad your are on our side.

            I can muster up a few quips on topics, but it takes a true scholar to write with thoughtful insight and knowledge, as you do.

            • duckpin (4216 posts)
              Profile photo of duckpin Donor

              13. That is very flattering coming from you who posts solid information regularly.

              Thanks very much.

              Cheers!

               

              "The justness of individual land right is  not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged "
      • Doremus Jessup (2406 posts)
        Profile photo of Doremus Jessup Donor

        10. The brokers don't even have too look out

        for the client’s best interest. Whatever gets them the biggest fee is A.O.K. They do this shit out in the daylight and their base doesn’t give a shit. In fairness to the repugnant party, if the D’s were in charge they would have passed the same bill. Part of Dodd-Frank that was to go into effect in January of 2018.

        Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity. End ALL occupations and bring the troops home.
        • duckpin (4216 posts)
          Profile photo of duckpin Donor

          11. That's right: Due diligence was too much of a burden for the wizards of

          finance: Let the workers trying to save for a decent retirement pay them for doing nothing – less than nothing really because they take money and give nothing in return.

          "The justness of individual land right is  not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged "
    • HIP56948 (2656 posts)
      Profile photo of HIP56948 Donor

      8. I and I'm sure others here, have had to educate a lot of people to the true..

      …story of the looting regarding the SS fund.  Most of them are completely appalled by the disgusting actions of our present and former politicians.

      None of us are truly surprised.  

    • Cleita (2434 posts)
      Profile photo of Cleita

      9. This again. Nothing has been looted. It's been invested in

      U. S. Treasury bonds. Yes, I’m sure the PTB don’t want to pay them back when due, but the fact is that they must.

      • Mnpaul (1336 posts)
        Profile photo of Mnpaul Donor

        16. But they are paying the interest on those notes with more treasury notes

        If they were actually paying the interest, it would add 350 billion yr or more to the budget. We`stopped paying it during the Bush years using the reasoning that we owe it to ourselves

        If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything - Hamilton
        • Cleita (2434 posts)
          Profile photo of Cleita

          17. They still have to pay it back.

          Unless this country goes bankrupt those notes are still the safest in the world.

          • Mnpaul (1336 posts)
            Profile photo of Mnpaul Donor

            18. If they are paying the interest with more debt

            sooner or later it will become unpayable.

            If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything - Hamilton
            • Cleita (2434 posts)
              Profile photo of Cleita

              19. If it gets to that, you'd better hope you aren't alive because it will

              really be Ragnarok then.

              • Mnpaul (1336 posts)
                Profile photo of Mnpaul Donor

                20. I'll probably be alive in 2023

                that is when the problems begin.

                If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything - Hamilton
                • Cleita (2434 posts)
                  Profile photo of Cleita

                  21. Then we all need to work like hell between now and then to make sure

                  that it doesn’t happen.

      • JimLane (1263 posts)
        Profile photo of JimLane

        22. Thank you for pointing this out.

        In preparation for the Boomers’ retirement, rates were raised so that a surplus would be accumulated.  The surplus was invested in U.S. government bonds, which is what some people now call “looting”.

        I guess the alternative would have been to take the surplus, buy up gold, platinum, precious stones, Picassos, etc., and store all the loot in Fort Knox.  Where it would not earn interest.

        If the Social Security trustees wanted to earn interest on that staggering accumulation of money, as they certainly and correctly did want, then buying U.S. bonds was the right way.

        • disillusioned73 (425 posts)
          Profile photo of disillusioned73 Donor

          25. So where did they go wrong?..

          if that was not the “looting” part, why do I continue to hear the talking point that SS is going broke?? You may be correct, but they seem to be using it to subvert the conversation – essentially exploiting Americans ignorance..

          "Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats." - Bernie Sanders
          • JimLane (1263 posts)
            Profile photo of JimLane

            26. Social Security is NOT going broke but it needs tweaking

            You ask, “why do I continue to hear the talking point that SS is going broke??”  The answer is that the right wing loves to spread that talking point.  If they can convince everyone under 40 or 50 that, under the present system, Social Security will not be there for them, then it will be easier for the GOP to change the system (cut benefits, increase the retirement age, or go whole hog by privatizing it).

            What’s actually happening: The surplus created by the 1983 FICA tax increase will probably fall a bit short of what is needed.  In other words, the projection is that, if no action is taken, at some point the surplus will be exhausted, but current revenues will at that time still be less than current expenditures.  If that happens, the Social Security Administration would continue to pay benefits, but would have to reduce them somewhat.

            Is this a problem?  Yes and no.  No, because it’s very unlikely that Congress would just sit idly by and watch millions of retirees lose a chunk of their promised benefits.  The “if no action is taken” condition is unrealistic.

            Yes, because the problem comes in taking some action.  Anything that’s done will meet opposition from somewhere.  The simplest tweak would be to raise or eliminate the cap on the income on which Social Security tax is paid.  Obviously, this works to the detriment of the highest-earning people.  Right now they stop paying FICA tax sometime in January.  They continue to receive their salaries for the rest of the year with no FICA deduction, while we peons are still paying.  They like that.  Implementing the most sensible and equitable solution will be politically difficult.

            The good news is that implementing right-wing solutions, such as raising the retirement age, will also be politically difficult.

            The do-nothing alternative, which results in automatic cuts in benefits, would lead to such outrage against incumbents that it’s probably the least likely alternative.  Even if nothing is done, however, we’re looking only at a reduction in benefits, not at a total end to Social Security.

            • disillusioned73 (425 posts)
              Profile photo of disillusioned73 Donor

              27. Thanks for the detailed answer..

              I was going to ask about the “cap” situation.. it seems like such a simple solution, yet no one ever brings it forward in a national discussion..

              "Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats." - Bernie Sanders
    • leftcoastmountains (2855 posts)
      Profile photo of leftcoastmountains Donor

      15. Been saying it for a long time.

      #CalExit #Trumpdoesn'tpaytaxeswhyshouldwe
    • Enthusiast (9468 posts)
      Profile photo of Enthusiast Donor

      23. Kicked and Recommended to the fucking Max!

      "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. There would be no place to hide."  Frank Church "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat, 1848
    • duckpin (4216 posts)
      Profile photo of duckpin Donor

      28. The OP's point is the operative one: On behalf of the Wealth class, the

      $2.5Trillion has found its way to the 1% and Congress wants the people to suffer rather than get the money back to fund the retirement contract that Social Security is. Congress can’t declare one part of the government bankrupt without declaring all of it bankrupt so I look for all sorts of lies, distortion, and coercion to get Social Security recipients to accept less so that the Wealthers can keep the boodle and continue to fund the political stooges they’ve bought.

      Refresh my memory please: Didn’t Clinton change the way the cost of living was computed for the purpose of retirement benefits to the detriment of older Americans? If so, people are already getting less than was mandated.

      "The justness of individual land right is  not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged "