Social Security surplus is the biggest scam of all time

[natedogg]

Sometime in the early 80's Congress developed a panic over the coming shortfall between payroll tax revenues and Social Security outlays to baby boomers.

So, what did they do? They embarked on a plan to create a "surplus" to prepare for this shortfall.

They raised FICA and phased in a later retirement age (ie reduced benefits). All this to make sure we had enough to cover the future shortfall without resorting to painful rememdies like reduced bennies, more borrowing, more taxes, or horror of horrors: reduced spending.

Then they spent every dime of the surplus and made a committment to make up the debt later out of future revenues in the general fund.

This puts us in exactly the same position we'd be in if we had never bothered to create the surplus. We have a looming shortfall and no savings to cover it; we must now either reduce spending or raise taxes or borrow more in order to cover it.

Why did they even bother to raise the surplus in the first place? Well silly, it allowed them to con the American worker out of nearly $2 Trillion from their wages without hearing so much as a peep of protest. Brilliant.

It's an outrage, but brilliant. I have to tip my hat to them, especially those current leaders who have gone so far as to suggest that the solution to the coming shortfall is to.... RAISE FICA EVEN MORE! That they can make this proposal with a straight face is truly a wonder to behold.

natedogg

[Phat Mack]

Then they spent every dime of the surplus and made a committment to make up the debt later out of future revenues in the general fund.

Not only that, but every dime they spent was accounted as revenue.

[andyfox]

Senator Moynihan called it, accurately IMO, thievery. And it was the Dems who led the way. How they could do this in good conscience, knowing the regressivity of the FICA tax, is beyond understanding.

They raised the surplus to cover the budget deficits. One thing Dems and Repubs agree upon is the necessity of covering their asses with smoke and mirrors.

Sorry to come across as a Zenoesque curmudgeon, but what else can one think?

[MtSmalls]

Quick, Name the president that presided over the tax increase? And name the two adminstrations that created the largest budget deficits since 1980....

[jaxmike]

quick, who is it that passes laws? if you answer "The President" then go back to spaces. your statement is faulty. furthermore, way to include 3 republican administrations and 1 democratic in your timetable.

[Dead]

Reagan didn't veto the largest tax increase in American history. It went through under his watch.

And Bush I helped work out a very large tax increase with congressional Democrats and Republicans.

[jaxmike]

not vetoing does not equal approving. please, learn more about government before saying such ignorant things.

[Dead]

I know plenty about government. What a petty insult.

I know that Reagan could have VETOED it. And yet he didn't. So much for being such a tax cutter and standing up against the Democratic hordes who clamored for more and more taxes.

Reagan tacitly supported the early 80s tax increase by not vetoing it. He had the power to veto it but he knew that if he didnt agree to it he wouldn't get anything passed through Congress, especially his precious defense spending increases.

[jaxmike]

Petty? I think not. By referring to Regan's defense spending as "precious defense spending increases" you show your lack of knowledge about a great many things.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Petty? I think not. By referring to Regan's defense spending as "precious defense spending increases" you show your lack of knowledge about a great many things.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was precious to him. He was obsessed with making the military bigger and bigger while neglecting every other governmental department in comparison.

He ran up massive deficits by ramping up defense spending while at the same time cutting taxes. It is not unsimilar to what is happening today.

The most disturbing part is that he was making large cuts to parts of the VA budget while increasing the DOD budget. Which is more important? VA or DOD? If you say the second one then you apparently don't know much at all.

Look at what's happening today. Same thing over again. Bush is planning on making some cuts to the VA while the DOD continues to get massive increases. Hardly any of the DOD money goes to the troops. A lot of it is wasted because it's used to deal out work to unscrupulous defense contractors.

[Felix_Nietsche]

The last time I check the Constitution, congress controls the purse strings and all spending must be approved by congress.
The Dems controlled congress during Reagan's tenure.

Since neither party was completely in control, Reagan had to make compromises with the Dems as does any president when presiding over a divided government. What amazed me was how much Reagan accomplished with the Dem controlled congress.

[Dead]

Not a good argument Mr. Felix.

Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate from 1980-1986, if I remember correctly.

Can't blame it on the Democrats in the House. A lot of it was Ray-Gun's fault.

And you're right. Ray-Gun was able to do a lot of damage despite a Democratic house.

[Zeno]

U.S. Constitution - Article 1, Section 7: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may purpose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

.

For Natedogg (and Andy)

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress. - Mark Twain, from Following The Equator, 1897.

-Zeno

[natedogg]

I cannot believe you guys are squabbling over Reagan-baiting and degenerating into partisan finger-pointing.

No wonder congress gets away with so much. They're robbing your ass blind and all you care about is if Reagan can be blamed or not? Jesus christ.

natedogg

[Dead]

Yes, yes, and who is Congress controlled by? Oh, yes, Republicans. And they've controlled it for the past 11 years.

[gvibes]

Wow, this thread has devolved a bit.

Rather than discussing solutions to a problem, we are arguing over who is to blame.

And whose fault is it? It began with FDR, and pretty much every congress and president since then has avoided confronting the issue, or made it worse.

[bholdr]

seriously, that chit is rigged! /images/graemlins/grin.gif


but back on topic: sounds like a 'fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice...' situation.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
but back on topic: sounds like a 'fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice...' situation.

[/ QUOTE ]


Exactly! Pelosi, Boxer, Kennedy and others are claiming there's no problem with Social Security finances, all we have to do is lift the FICA cap.

This is an outright cynical lie. Because ANY surplus revenues will be used to purchase TBills from congress and that money will be spent, putting us in the same situation we are in now, and the same situation we were in before this scam was introduced.

Anyone who has proposed solving SS's woes by raising FICA rate or FICA cap is either a complete moron, or a cynical lying scumbag. Those are the only two possible explanations.

natedogg

PS: online poker is indeed probably a close second... /images/graemlins/smile.gif