• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The results are in on social security

majora$$hole said:
this is true and the prez can veto and take us to war.
Click to expand...

The President can't veto an appropriations bill that doesn't make it to his desk. The President can't take us to war....he has limited ability to deploy troops without congressional approval. He's only got 90 days or so before congress says yes or no.
 
Catawba said:
This annual surplus is credited to Social Security trust funds that hold special non-marketable Treasury securities, and this surplus amount is commonly referred to as the "Social Security Trust Fund". The proceeds are paid into the U.S. Treasury where they may be used for other government purposes."
[/I]
Click to expand...
And that is why all of the money is gone. It was squandered to buy things to keep politicians in power. We ought to go find every one of them, take all of their wealth, then run them out of the country.
 
Catawba said:
Bush raided and spent a total of $1.37 trillion of Social Security surplus during his eight years as president. In his last year, he spent $192.2 billion, which averages out to more than $526 million per day.

During a speech on April 5, 2005 in Parkersburg, West Virginia, Bush openly admitted to the fact that all of the Social Security surplus revenue had been spent. He said, "There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay—will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs."
News Articles: No Money in the Social Security Trust Fund
Click to expand...
The President cannot raid Social Security. He can only spend what the Congress allows. For really big thefts the Congress is the place to be.

And this offers evidence that there is nothing of value remaining. Only IOUs from one government agency to another.
 
Misterveritis said:
The President cannot raid Social Security. He can only spend what the Congress allows. For really big thefts the Congress is the place to be.

And this offers evidence that there is nothing of value remaining. Only IOUs from one government agency to another.
Click to expand...

When Bush entered office he said there was a 2.6 trillion dollars surplus and that he was going to make sure it wasn't used for anything else. Before he left he said it was all gone. Of course the president didn't take us to war against Iraq on his own. The majority of the GOP supported the war who outvoted the majority of Democrats who voted against it. Since the GOP cut revenues while waging 2 wars the money had to come from somewhere, the SS trust funds and our national debt took the hit. Now its time to pay the piper!

:sun
 
mac said:
If the money is accessed via an appropriation bill, then Congress has a major role in that, no?
Click to expand...

The majority of Democrats voted against war against Iraq. Who does that leave as the party responsible for the Iraq debt and deaths?
 
This thread has beaten the horse so much that its skeletal remains are in a 3 foot hole. I have only one thing to add to this thread.


 
Catawba said:
The majority of Democrats voted against war against Iraq. Who does that leave as the party responsible for the Iraq debt and deaths?
Click to expand...

In the house, and not by much of a margin. In the Senate, the majority voted for it. Regardless, most of these appropriations passed in Democrat controlled congresses.
 
mac said:
In the house, and not by much of a margin. In the Senate, the majority voted for it. Regardless, most of these appropriations passed in Democrat controlled congresses.
Click to expand...


Nope, in both the Senate and the House, the majority of Democrats voted against invading Iraq and the majority of Republicans voted for it. I've checked. Likewise, with the special appropritions, a majority of Democrats voted against them and a majority of Republicans voted for them.
 
Catawba said:
Nope, in both the Senate and the House, the majority of Democrats voted against invading Iraq and the majority of Republicans voted for it. I've checked. Likewise, with the special appropritions, a majority of Democrats voted against them and a majority of Republicans voted for them.
Click to expand...

No, in the Senate it was 29 Democrats for and 21 against. Are you saying all the resolutions were voted against by Democrats? Even in the Democrat majority years? (which is most of the 20th century, by the way).
 
mac said:
No, in the Senate it was 29 Democrats for and 21 against. Are you saying all the resolutions were voted against by Democrats? Even in the Democrat majority years? (which is most of the 20th century, by the way).
Click to expand...

In the House

<3% of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution
61% of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.

In the Senate

2% of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution
42% of 50 Democratic senators voted against the resolution

While a slight majority of Dems in the house joined an almost unanimous GOP support, as can be seen, Congressional Republicans almost unanimously voted for the Iraq war and the great majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the Iraq war.

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same with the special appropriations for the Iraq war. A majority of the Democrats have voted against the majority of appropriations and a majority of Republicans have voted for the majority of special appropriations.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
When Bush entered office he said there was a 2.6 trillion dollars surplus and that he was going to make sure it wasn't used for anything else. Before he left he said it was all gone.
Click to expand...
Congress, not the President, sets the budget. There is no surplus. There never has been. It is much like stories of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
 
Misterveritis said:
Congress, not the President, sets the budget. There is no surplus. There never has been. It is much like stories of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Click to expand...

The surplus is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US. It helped finance the GOP war in Iraq.
 
Catawba said:
The surplus is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US.
Click to expand...

the full faith and credit of the United States is not what backs those notes - all that backs them is a promise from Congress to make good on them.
 
cpwill said:
the full faith and credit of the United States is not what backs those notes - all that backs them is a promise from Congress to make good on them.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion internet guy:

"Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government."
Trust Fund FAQs
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your opinion internet guy:

"Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government."
Trust Fund FAQs
Click to expand...
Can you imagine buying T-Bills and at maturity being told they are worthless IOU's?
 
To help clear up the misconceptions by many regarding Social Security ~

Top 5 Social Security Myths -

Myth: Social Security is going broke.
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a ‘T’). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it’ll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits–and again, that’s without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What’s more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly–since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn’t need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here’s a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn’t full of IOUs, it’s full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market–which would have been disastrous–but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It’s not just wrong — it’s impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can’t add one penny to the deficit"

Social Security Under Attack Again | Veterans Today
 
Nothing would destroy the faith of the American people in their government more than a reneging on the Social Security promises made to them while they worked their entire adult lives.

Now, don't you think the Cato Institute knows that?

Don't you think the Club for Growth knows that?

Don't you think ALEC knows that?

Don't you think Ron Paul and Rand Paul know that?

Don't you think every right leaning libertarian think tank and pundit knows that?

So if you despise government, no greater weapon is available to you than to do everything you can to undermine Social Security.
 
haymarket said:
Nothing would destroy the faith of the American people in their government more than a reneging on the Social Security promises made to them while they worked their entire adult lives.

Now, don't you think the Cato Institute knows that?

Don't you think the Club for Growth knows that?

Don't you think ALEC knows that?

Don't you think Ron Paul and Rand Paul know that?

Don't you think every right leaning libertarian think tank and pundit knows that?

So if you despise government, no greater weapon is available to you than to do everything you can to undermine Social Security.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you despise government. I think only the anarchists despise government.
 
so. how is the general fund going to come up with those huge surpluses?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Increase taxes and cut spending on general programs
Click to expand...

right. and then because that won't get you enough (literally, it won't get you enough), what do you do after that?


there is only one way that we could fully fund Social Security. We would have to virtually get rid of Medicare. that's the only pile of costs big enough to cover that gap. :D have a good time choosing, boomers! I suspect you will F*$& this up the same way you have F*$&'d up everything else you have touched :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom