Forum Post: Social security is not an entitlement! Someone Please tell Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc....that!
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 9, 2011, 11:41 p.m. EST by paulg5
(673)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Any money that gets cut from Social Security is stolen! Social security is not an entitlement, you paid for it! Social Security is not broke! Social Security has had a surplus of funds since the mid 80ies! If you are rich or poor you are a fool for voting for any candidate that wants to cut or change the age for receiving social security Benefits!
Let's educate the kids here.
Back in the 1980's Social Security had a 'trust fund' the people who paid in got their money back later on interest, it was BILLION's of dollars accrued. It worked for 50 years.
Then a prez came along name RONNY RAYGUN, a porn star from the 1930's, owned by GE(general electric), they made him governor of the USA, and then Prez of USA.
One of the first things RAYGUN did as prez, is take the SS trust fund cash, and replace it with an IOU ( worthless fucking paper ),
Ever since the SS has had to borrow money to pay the retiree's,...
So now for 40 years essentially this is true the SS is an entitlement, but before the father of modern right-wing christian butt-fucking robbed SS, it was a funded system.
Now jump to today the USA is broke. Something has to give, the pie is essentially
MEDICAL
Social-Security
WAR: GE, DOD, ...DARPA ...
COPS: CIA, FBI, TSA, DHS, BATF, DOE, SS, ... fucking endless list ... :(
Now guess who has the most political power in the USA? WHo has the influence? Who owns the oreo-Obama? Why the bankers on WALL-ST, and how do they get rich? ON WAR
The PIGS (COP-SHOP)? Are you kidding they're the only thing protecting the ELITE from fucking annihilation.
So war will not get cut then what will? The second biggest parasite is the AMA (doctors) so they'll be covered ...
That only leaves social-security to fuck, and what are they going to do about it?
just stating the facts
When I was born Richard Nixon was Vice President.
Here is the fix. Did you know that people who make a million dollars a year don't have to pay anymore into SS than people who make $110,000 a year.
Eliminate that cut off so the rich have to pay their fair share and SS is good through 2075.
We shouldn't just depend on this one fix, other things should be done, but if eliminate SS, seriously, there will be loads of grandparents living with and off their kids and grandkids, and they will be smellin' up the joint.
I like it. the Rich's contribution should just be seen as a price of doing business in a union. Any one who says that this would stop people from being wealthy and wont work hard are full of stinky feces.
The rich dont need SS. They can manage their money for retirement.
It was set up as a crutch for those who cant control their finances for 45 years.
That is probably 90% of us. BTW, try living on $650 a month. I don't recommend it.
No way 90% is responsible. The nation's saving rate is 2%. 2%!! Thats the average savings rate.
OH MY GOD!
The rich should pay no more than the maximum allowed to be extracted; they should pay no more than the current top bracket. Government needs to stop giving our money away.
I think it's time that we decide as a society that allowing anyone to get too rich is dangerous to our society.
That doesn't include me does it? I mean, cause, I've got places to go and people to do, etc. And I don't think I want you as my master.
your right. I appoint you as the one who decides what "too" rich is.
Well troll, it's like this. "Too rich" are such concentrations of wealth that that wealth overrides our democracy.
I don't expect you to care, you seem to be a worm who sides with power, but others do.
no eat the rich and take everything
Where I live, about 100 miles from NYC, almost our entire economy is derived or dependent on the rich... There is very little manufacturing left; it all comes out of NYC in one form or another. Eat the rich and we eat ourselves.
how do you figure eat the rich and nobody is taking advantage of workers and making money off of someone elses sweat
Somebody better be taking advantage of our sweat because of they're not no wealth is being generated; and if no wealth is generated people like me who "work" (or invest our only resource of labor) will always be poor.
it just goes to show how conditioned you are by the system if you were a slave you would have been one of the ones saying masta he treats us well he feeds me and houses me masta is good fucking idiot
It's a cultural thing, and evolutionary... a means of supporting large populations with few readily available natural resources. They're still saying similar things in Africa and have been for hundreds of years.
um there are plenty of natural resources even today try again stick your head further up your own racist ass
haha... no... the once incredible abundance of America is now far beyond even our imagination. One cannot envision a continent of three hundred foot trees, or wild turkey that averaged 40 to 50 lbs, clams a foot across, lobster in the Hudson five feet long... Stripers so abundant that one could literally "walk the sea on their backs," etc.
They filled the holds of the very first ships with Cod with but mere hooks...
Unfortunately, at the start of the 17th century, very few places in the world were as abundant as America was, and for this reason, slavery did exist in many parts of the world and had for hundreds of years. It was entirely color blind.
we are still have the resources but we need to take better care of them instead of just trying to extract them http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-video-is-a-must-see-for-those-who-are-serious/
No we don't have the natural resources... if we did no one would have to work for another.
Good post. Best Regards, Nevada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-3hZsXrxaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQqjTxI3vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
Social Security is a deferred compensation program that is paid through the payroll taxes that are taken out of everybody's paycheck's for the people who work. In the payroll taxes that working people pay, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes and other taxes. Bush2 raided and stole 1.7 trillion dollars from the Social Security Trust Fund to fund his massive tax breaks to the rich and corporations, and fund his endless wars in the Middle East! He and his administration and the Republicans stole the money from hardworking people and now the Republicans are refusing to pay it back! They even want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare in order not to pay it back! In 2012, let's get rid of the Tea Partiers and Republicans who want to get rid of SS and Medicare and other social programs and kick them into the streets.
If you check into it you'll find that SS was raided but not depleated it has been self funded all these years and has had a surplus since the mid 80ies even though it was raided. And they still tell us it's going broke!
These fools on the corporate media and their puppeteers are still trying to steal our social security meanwhile preparing for another war in Iran!
We have to stop the lies by surrounding the media and forcing them to tell the truth.
Yes exactly, Occupy needs to take this to the media, surround the TV stations with this on your sign. Spell it out for them...very...slowly....Social Security is separately funded by FICA taxes...it is not the cause of our deficit. The politicians have been stealing from Social Security to pay for tax cuts and wars and now they don't want to pay it back.
In Egypt the protesters surrounded the TV stations and would not leave until they started reporting the truth...and it worked!
Would love to see that!
Social Security Trust Fund is currently holding $2.3 trillion dollars. Most of these funds are in secured bonds. The Federal Government owes IOUs totaling $2.7 trillion dollars which is contracted for repayment at the interest rate of 7%. Do the math, when 'they' say Social Security is broke, when 'they' say benefits may not be paid, that's scare tactics.
Currently FICA withholdings are set at 4.2% for employees, with an additional 6.2% paid by the employer. Self employed persons withholding rate is set at10.4%. The cap on FICA is $106,800 after which there are no withholdings.
Medicare is financed with a 2.9% tax with NO cap. The withholdings break down to a 1.45% for both employer and employee.
The lesser amount of FICA percentage withheld is due to previous tax cuts which are scheduled to end, but most likely won't since the tax cuts have been extended. at least for the wealthiest persons in the USA. It's still debatable whether or not the tax cuts for the rest of the working population will be extended or not.
Most of this information is available at the SSA website in the FAQ section. http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/session/L3RpbWUvMTMyMzk0MzQxMy9zaWQvOWVrLTZFTGs%3D
At the present time benefits are being paid out of funds accrued from payroll deductions, leaving the SSTF balance intact. When benefit amounts exceed payroll funds, the trust is tapped to provide for those who receive benefits.
For several decades the interest the SSTF has earned has been redirected into the general fund, how much this has been each year has not been made public, as far as I have been able to determine there has been no accounting for these amounts. Assuming interest on the stated $2.3 trillion currently in the trust, one can extrapolate an extremely large amount with no hope of seeing those funds returned, with interest.
Lyndon B. Johnson in an effort to make government spending more transparent included SSTF and benefits in the budget, opening the way for future administrations to 'borrow' from the fund.
There is a great deal of information about SS and Medicare at the SSA website. I suggest the FAQ section for specific information.
I think people are talking about apples and oranges. Here is my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong. The bonds in the SS "trust fund" are essentially IOUs that have to paid at some point by someone (i.e., the US taxpayer). I think some people believe there is a big mountain of cash in Al Gore's famous "lockbox" but that is not the case, it is just IOUs (so far they are very safe and solid IOUs, but nevertheless). Now until very recently SS has collected more through the payroll tax than it paid out to beneficiaries; that money went into the general fund and an IOU went into the lockbox. But this year or last year the balance shifted and payroll tax collections are now less than payouts. And as we look forward to the aging of the population, that is not going to reverse by itself. So something has to give.
The bonds are like any other bond...some are US bonds, some municipal etc.
The excess from the collections from the FICA tax are not what is going to the general fund, or at least it shouldn't be, it is the interest collected on the bonds etc that is being redirected and has been since 1980.
The IOUs are separate bonds (at least this was my understanding when I researched it) that are supposed to be paid at a different interest rate (7%) than the original bonds which were 'borrowed'.
The something's has to give should not be those who paid into the Trust in good faith for all their career lives. That would be like paying into an annuity fund only to be told that your payments were spent by the annuity holder, which in effect the SSA is.
This is why it is so important that we find a way to stimulate the economy, and provide jobs, why we may need to eliminate the cap on payroll tax for FICA, and why we need to keep the promises made in our name to our people, including our military personnel.
"The bonds are like any other bond...some are US bonds, some municipal etc."
According to the SSA, all the bonds currently are special issue treasury bonds. That was not always the case.
"The excess from the collections from the FICA tax are not what is going to the general fund"
As I understand it, ALL tax money collected (including FICA) goes into the US Treasury. And the Treasury pays benefits to SS recipients. The "money" in the "trust fund" is just a bookkeeping balance, comparing the the amount taken in and the amount paid to recipients. The balance is converted into special issue bonds (e.g. IOU).
"The something's has to give should not be those who paid into the Trust in good faith for all their career lives"
Sadly, I think that is one thing that will happen. At some point means testing may need to be instituted. And I think your wording "those who paid into the Trust in good faith for all their career lives" is very interesting. That is how the thing was sold to people originally; people were led to believe that they were paying into a "trust fund" in their names, and that their money was placed safely in a "lockbox," and when they retired they would get it back with interest. And some people still believe that. But in reality, it is an intergenerational wealth transfer. People working today are paying the current retirees; when today's workers retire, they (we) hope that the younger generation will be willing to pick up the load. Is that a realistic hope? Should the guy flipping burgers have to pay for Bill Gates's retirement, regardless of whether or not Gates "paid into the Trust in good faith for all (his) career life"? I don't have a simple answer (of course no one else does either). In 1940 there were 159 workers for each beneficiary; currently it is less than 3 to 1, and with the aging of the population it is sure to drop much further. Suppose it reaches 2 to 1: are you and one friend going to be happy that you are paying for the retirement of John Corzine? Personally, I am assuming in my own financial planning that there will be no SS when I retire.
"why we may need to eliminate the cap on payroll tax for FICA"
I think that is another step that will probably occur. And a third is raising the retirement age.
What was and what is are two different things...and add in what was supposed to be, just to make the mix interesting.
SSA was created to be a separate yet included into the federal governing system. The funds paid in were to be 'invested' in America, via bonds, Treasury, state, municipal and of course infrastructure such as energy. The interest from these bonds was supposed to generate enough revenue to pay the first recipients of benefits, with a surplus growing for future generations.
When LBJ put SSA into the budget in an effort to make government spending more transparent (at least that was the hype at the time), it opened a can of worms...
The Trust should have been self perpetuating.
The really sad part about all this is at one time, retirement was looked at as a potentially mandatory life event, thus opening up the job market to the next generation.
What is worrisome is that a few years ago there was some 'eyeballing' of the Highway Trust Fund...I haven't been able to find any information on balances nor expenditures from this fund.
"SSA was created to be a separate yet included into the federal governing system. The funds paid in were to be 'invested' in America"
I'm not an economist, but I think part of the problem is that money is fungible, and there is only one actual "bank account," if you want to call it that, the US Treasury. Everything else is just bookkeeping, and I think all the "investing in America" verbiage is marketing.
I could be wrong, but I think the following analogy is accurate (someone please correct me if it is not). I have two sources of income: one I earmark "living expenses" and the other I call "everything else." All the money from both jobs goes into one account. My actual living expenses are $1000 a month, and the "living expenses" job pays $1100. So I am good there. My "everything else" job pays $1000 a month, but my expenditures for everything else are $2000. At the end of the year, I am deeply in debt (regardless of how I label it, I brought in $2100 per month and I spent $3000). I can brag to my friends that I am in the black with my living expenses (and even show them my account book), but it doesn't help when the bill collectors come a -knockin.' Of course if I had investments that made up the difference, it might not be so stark.
So if this analogy is correct, people have been bragging about how (until very recently) SS has run in the black, when n fact the actual "bank account" is trillions of dollars overdrawn.
"The interest from these bonds was supposed to generate enough revenue to pay the first recipients of benefits"
As I said, I am not an economist, but I don't see how that helps since that interest has to be paid by the federal government. At some point all this money has to be extracted from taxpayers.
"What is worrisome is that a few years ago there was some 'eyeballing' of the Highway Trust Fund...I haven't been able to find any information on balances nor expenditures from this fund."
I believe this is just another imaginary page in the account book in my analogy above, just a bookkeeping tactic to keep track of who is owed what. Another analogy: let's say you have two children, and you gave them odd names: Highway and SocSec. They get an allowance of $10 a week. But in order to help them save, they agree to let you hold the actual dollars (unless they really need something from time to time) and keep track of their balances on paper. So each week you dutifully record the amount owned. Over the course of the year SocSec spent $100 (you put it on a debit card) and Highway spent (on the debit card) $200. At the end of the year, you show them their balances - SocSec has $420, Highway $320.
Meanwhile, you earned $50,000 over the course of the year. You spent a total of $75,000 (a lot of it wasted on booze, fast women and slow horses). So rather than having money to hand over to your kids (even though both Highway and SocSec have admirable balances) you have $25K debt. And as you add children, the situation is only going to get worse.
I think that is how it works, but maybe someone who knows more about this can correct me if I am wrong.
By the way, another thing the federal govt is looking at is the store of real wealth in people's private retirement accounts (401K and that sort of thing). They are carefully looking at the feasibility of doing that (and it has been done in other countries).
I think the point is that what is, is not what was outlined in the first place.
It all boils down to the same thing as putting your money in a bank and the bank pays interest, but spends your money.
It's all debt based.
"I think the point is that what is, is not what was outlined in the first place."
Yes, it's a case of what was promised vs what was delivered.
The large print giveth and the small print taketh away.
Thank You!
Social Security should not have a cut off income level. It should have a means test for the full amount received. If you are super wealthy then you should only get a bare minimum for your contribution but if you are poor then you should be able to pay rent or mortgage and still be able to feed yourselves. If there were no "cut off" income level then there would be more than enough funds to assist people in their old ages.
especially when when all we can fund are tax payer funded bailouts for CEOs
Like SS or not, but without it we would legalize doctor assisted suicide faster than you can say Kevorkian!
God, can you imagine the gall of these people supporting bankers and corporate executives colluding to steal billions of dollars and then calling social security and "entitlement." Who the heck here is getting entitlements? The bankers and corporate executives, only they aren't entitlements, they're loot, plain and simple!
This is a CANCER that we must put an end to, regardless of the method!
They rich want to take the social security money ,like they took our houses and jobs
They say that because they don't want to cut from the military thats where the rest of SS money goes. Thats why they hate ron paul thats the first place he wants to cut is the military.
ACTUALLY, it most certainly IS AN ENTITLEMENT, payed out of Current TAX RECEIPTS, there is no 'savings account' 'lockbox' or any other such horseshit. Its a TAX, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN. If you collect SS, you NOT collecting WHAT YOU PAID IN, your collecting what others are paying in AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, period. That is the way it has ALWAYS been, YES, there WAS a surplus at one point in time, THAT money was SPENT.
ITS Collected as a TAX
and distributed as an ENTITLEMENT.
Period.
Read this guys post right above yours PandoraK Hope you can find it right up go up up up there! Read his post maybe that will better explain I am done arguing good night!
PS If you still don't agree vote for NEWT or Paul something or other whats his face, Or better yet, send you ss check back! I'm gonna have a MEAT HEAD sandwich and go to bed ganight!
You are entitled to something if you pay into it , therefore it is an entitlement 1
There is a difference between Insurance and entitlementds Just like the government calling unemployment compensation an entitlement it is not it is unemployment insurance you and your employer pay for it!
Be prepared, they're going to try and get away with not calling the cutting of Social Security benefits what it really is, a sovereign default.
The mortgage fraud INSIDERS transfered the Social Security money to their OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS! Prosecute the Atlanta VA loan guarantee officer!
Proof?
The Social Security fund is a lump of funds underwritten by the US Govt. the payments made to SS recipients comes out of the US Govt (tax receipts). The US Govt has been forced to take its funds to to offset both the losses uncured to the banking /investment 'industry' via the multipledging of loans, where the mortgage fraud insiders created many fraudulent parallel loans piggy backed onto the the real loans, each loan unknown to the other lenders do to the MERS (and others?) DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY put in place to conceal the FRAUD RACKET. These 'insiders' were able to transfer these fraudulent mortgage moneys to their offshore 'trusts'. CONCEALED PERSONAL 'REMICS' (or the like) The US govt REIMBURSED those whose BOOKS WERE COOKED for their 'LOSSES'. Thus, those funds came from the tax coffers of the US Govt. Social Security is the coffer of coffers' Thus, Social Security is UNDERWRITING the LOSSES caused by MORTGAGE FRAUD, and the
Hi paulg, Good post. Best Regards, Nevada
Thanks
Thank you normal people on here!
Very true!!
I want to opt out of social security. Being born into a social contract is a joke of a concept. A contract is a voluntary agreement. I never agreed to this. I don't want to pay into it, and I don't want any of the benefits. I want to make my own way in life. If I get to old age, I think I should deal with the consequences of my actions. I plan on working hard, investing carefully, and saving. And most importantly developing a social network of my own choosing so that if I am ever in need, I can turn to people who care about me and who I care about for help. Why do I want strangers to be my safety net? I believe in charity when it is voluntary. I don't want my money stolen, and I don't want to steal the future generations money for my benefit.
The option of opting out of SS disability insurance is the wrong thing to do, its the best program government ever came up with, and it truly has kept the elderly form living on the streets! Taking away SS would leave the country in the same condition that health care has now, those with no coverage are paid for by those with coverage through higher premiums and higher hospital bills!
Ok, I appreciate you have an opinion on the matter. You cannot prove any of what you are saying, because what you are saying is an alternate reality based on your opinion.
There are a lot of things that could be done with the money spent on social security, and some of those possibilities may also lead to better outcomes than the result we have now. You have to grant that is possible too, if you want to go down the road of alternate realities. Government can't make choices that are the best for all individuals. There is no way to get enough information about every individual. I will always know more about my situation than anyone else. I believe individuals do best with the freedom to decide for themselves how to use their resources.
I see childhood as a better investment than the old. There is so much ageism in the world. The old have the political power. The young are property of parents and the government. Prevention is better than cure. I don't want government determining children's well being either. If I can do better than the average person in some areas, then let me be a model for others to follow.