Surplus = (revenue-expenditure) > 0If not then it can be used with no consequences. I am sure that someone of your superior intelligence and book smarts understand the answer to that. Now the question is will you run from the truth?
No amount of redefining terminology diminishes this fact.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
Social Security is Much Worse Than a Ponzi Scheme - and Here's How to End It - Forbes
So the answer is as usual you refuse to answer so let me help you. You were coerced into putting money into SS and yes it is a future obligation owed to you that has been spent. Paying more in that going out doesn't change the fact that SS is a future obligation in the amount you contributed with maybe the hope of a little return. Light bulb go off yet?
By the way, insurance companies invest premiums getting a return on those premiums from the profits generated by other companies and entities
Reagan's % increase is greater and his recession spending was greater while his recession was smallerReagan was responsible for 1.7 trillion dollars in debt whereas Obama is responsible for over 6.2 trillion in less than 5 years.
Absolutely falseSS is bankrupt,