Silly Republicans Confused on Social Security

[Ant]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180009

In his February 18 Washington Post column, nationally syndicated columnist and FOX News contributor Charles Krauthammer called the Social Security trust fund "fictional" and claimed: "The Social Security system has no trust fund." In fact, far from being fictional, Social Security's trust fund is composed of real assets.

From Krauthammer's February 18 column:

"2042 is the fictional date for the fictional bankruptcy of a fictional trust fund.

Let's start with basics. The Social Security system has no trust fund. No lockbox. When you pay your payroll tax every year, the money is not converted into gold bars and shipped to some desert island, ready for retrieval when you turn 65. The system is pay as you go. The money goes to support that year's Social Security recipients. What's left over is "lent" to the federal Treasury. And gets entirely spent. It vanishes. In return, a piece of paper gets deposited in a vault in West Virginia saying that the left hand of the government owes money to the right hand of the government.

These pieces of paper might be useful for rolling cigars. They will not fund your retirement."

The Social Security trust fund -- which is surplus payroll tax revenue that, by law, is used to purchase Treasury securities -- represents as real and redeemable a debt as any other to which the federal government is obligated. Treasury securities are owned by investors worldwide and represent a safe, stable investment backed by the good faith and financial strength of the U.S. government. As a January 10 New York Times editorial explained: "If the trust fund's Treasury securities are worthless, someone better tell investors throughout the world, who currently hold $4.3 trillion in Treasury debt that carries the exact same government obligation to pay as the trust fund securities."

Krauthammer further argued: "To cover retiree benefits [after Social Security outlays exceed revenues in 2018], the government will have to exhaust all of its FICA [Federal Insurance Contributions Act] tax revenue and come up with the rest -- by borrowing on the world market, raising taxes or cutting other government programs." While it is true that the government may have to increase taxes or reduce spending in order to redeem its debt to Social Security, the argument is misleading. The government will have to take the same steps to cover all of its $7.6 trillion in public debts, not just what it owes to Social Security.

As Media Matters for America has documented, the faulty claim that the Social Security trust fund is a "myth" has been repeated by a number of conservative commentators, including FOX News managing editor Brit Hume, National Review contributing editor and former Bush speechwriter David Frum, and self-syndicated columnist and radio host Armstrong Williams.

[nibs]

Ant:
In his February 18 Washington Post column, nationally syndicated columnist and FOX News contributor Charles Krauthammer called the Social Security trust fund "fictional" and claimed: "The Social Security system has no trust fund." In fact, far from being fictional, Social Security's trust fund is composed of real assets.

the social security trust really is fictional.  social security is basically a secret regressive tax.  why are the republicans calling it fictional?  because if social security doesn't change, when they try to cash in those bonds the u.s. govt will either have to raise taxes or issue more treasury notes to cover that difference.  the money isn't sitting around anywhere.  if they don't change the system, depending on what the economic growth is that is going to result in either higher taxes or increased debt.  additionally, the federal govt will probably cut spending on other social programs to pay for it.

why is the social security trust fictional?  because it's just another tax, it's a regressive tax, and the federal govt has basically opened up their accounting books to trick people into thinking social security is something other than a secret tax.  the social security surplus is currently a secret tax; because they have no intention to pay it back.

what's amusing to me is this.  think about what the republicans are saying.  "we don't ever want to pay the social security surplus".   because it's a secret tax.  but think about where that money comes from...they only tax the first $90,000 of income.  that's barely into the second highest tax bracket which starts around $68k (28%) and the the top tax bracket is at something like $210k at (33%).  so the money is coming from the bottom tax brackets.  but that surplus is currently being used to pay off the tax cuts, where the majority of the money goes to the top 2% of income earners.   this because the federal govt is running budget deficits, and they're borrowing money; they can't afford to cover the tax cuts.  and a large chunk of that borrowed money comes from social security.   the bottom wages (and hence, all the bottom wage earners) are paying for the tax cuts that go to the top wage earners; through social security which the republicans are acknowledging is nothing more than a secret tax.  that's regressive.  that's wealth redistribution but going from the bottom to the top.  lol.

now, privitization doesn't solve any of those problems.  but social security is currently not fairly implemented for lower income earners, and ultimately they aren't going to pay back the surplus, because the implications are undesirable.  and the trust is fictious, social security never even see that money, it goes straight to the treasury and all they get is the t-notes.

[Fathom]

Government run Social Secruity should be eliminated.

[_That_Cracka_J]

Government run Social Secruity should be eliminated.

SHOULD be, but most people are not responsible enough to provide for their own retirement.  I'd prefer to NOT have $ deducted from my check for social security.  Instead, I'd like to have that money to invest myself cause I can make 10 times what I'm gonna get out of it if I drew social security!  Drawing SS basically just gives me me my money back, not including interest or inflation.

IMO, social security was invented because people are not resposible enough to provide for themselves.  If they had that extra money, they would want to spend it and when they got old they would cry, "What's the government gonna do for me?"

[nibs]

_That_Cracka_J:
SHOULD be, but most people are not responsible enough to provide for their own retirement.

social security does more than provide for retirement.  if you are injured and can't work, social security will kick in.  if you die, your wife and kids can collect social security benefits.   social security is a useful program.

I'd prefer to NOT have $ deducted from my check for social security.

the problem i have with social security is that it is a secret regressive tax.  i don't care about how the govt does their accounting.  rather than singling out social security as if it were somehow worse than other taxes, recognize that it is a tax, and that is money better spent than other taxes.

Instead, I'd like to have that money to invest myself cause I can make 10 times what I'm gonna get out of it if I drew social security!  Drawing SS basically just gives me me my money back, not including interest or inflation.

social security is a tax, and americans are taxed less than all of the other modern nations.  you have much more of your income to invest on your own than you would making the same salary in other nations like canada or france.  nothing is stopping you from investing.  but if you ever hit rock bottom, social security is that safety net there to catch you.

IMO, social security was invented because people are not resposible enough to provide for themselves.  If they had that extra money, they would want to spend it and when they got old they would cry, "What's the government gonna do for me?"

social security was invented because "poverty is a bad thing™" for society in general, it leads to crime; it leads to greater widespread poverty.  it's a hinderance to the development and progress of society as a whole.  it doesn't just help the elderly, it helps little kids as well. 

if i'm going to complain about taxes, i'm going to complain about the defense budget being 500 or so billion with another 100 billion supplemental for the war.  i have a problem with my tax dollars killing people so that "america can remain the sole super power".  i don't have a problem with my tax dollars helping kids that have lost their dad.  or helping some grandmother that would be stuck eating dog food otherwise.