that by law replaced the missing revenue from the general fund (thus adding to the deficit).

All Obama/Congress had to do was to add a tax decrease to the middleclass instead of this
crappy payroll tax holiday.

So, in my mind, sorry, the payroll tax holiday 'payback' does not add to the debt of Social Security.

We need to stress that the total FICA payroll tax MUST be restored.

From the DU thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021969595

• Offsetting the deficit reductions measures, there would be $528 billion in additional spending to extend the tax credit for student expenses, the Earned Income Credit, extension of unemployment benefits, extension of the payroll tax reduction, and other breaks targeted to middle and lower income earners.

Obama's payroll tax helps to destroy Social Security. Although, the funds are paid into
SS to make up for the payroll tax holiday, it is an approximation and more importantly,
it gives the connotation that removing the payroll tax is a 'tax hike'.

Call/email President Obama and inform him to end the FICA holiday.

it replaces it from the trust funds. That's the whole point: the trust funds are growing faster than the outlays, even with the payroll tax cut. And even if they weren't, they'd have to be exhausted before the general fund would actually have to start funding SS. And that's a long, long, LONG way off by the most conservative estimates, which are usually laughably off base.

The reality is that SS has off-the-books revenue streams that just about guarantee that the trust fund will keep ballooning indefinitely, for example, undocumented immigrants who use stolen or fictitious SS #s. Yes, their employers pay their SS taxes, but the employees have no chance of ever collecting benefits. Is the SS admin aware of this? Hmm. Is water wet? But those anomalies aren't reflected in the official forecasts.

Executive summary: the AP fact checkers are confused because they want to be. It's a con.

then from the general fund so the result is the same.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ312/html/PLAW-111publ312.htm

Yes, funds borrowed from the trust funds have to be repaid to the trust funds when needed, but it was borrowed in the first place. The funds were collected from workers and are held in trust by the SS admin. There's no net loss to the general fund, just repayment of money owed.

The accounting shows where the general fund is debited and the trust fund credited...
Is that what you mean?

and when it's needed for SS benefits, the general fund has to repay those loans. But there's no net loss the general fund.

come from? Is there a source other than the General Fund or rolling over non-tradeable Trust Fund bonds into publicly tradeable bonds for cash? Thanks to Dubya, with borrowing to meet general fund obligations already at more than a third, how can you say with a straight face that Social Security does not affect the deficit?

However, I think the usual conclusion people draw from this linkage is wrong. IMO it is unlikely Congress will force Treasury to default on repayment of "full faith and credit" special Trust Fund bonds. No--Congress does not need to induce default--it retains control over the rate at which Treasury must make good on the near-three-trillion in Trust Fund bonds. Benefits may be cut over a long period of time in subtle ways, such as underpaying on inflation adjustment of benefits, Taxing SS benefits at higher rates, or raising retirement ages for people now in their forties and under.

IMO, we need to beware of such so-called "STRENGTHENING" of Social Security--that's the real threat.

IMO evil genius Alan Greenspan invented the scam of the century in the early 80's, by not allowing the trillions in extra FICA he began taxing, ostensibly for the Trust Fund, to be lent to anyone but the US Treasury. Had he allowed the establishment of a Soveriegn Wealth Fund for Social Security--as most every State does for its government workers--we would not have to fear "strengthening". But for Greenspan, such a Soveriegn Wealth Fund would have been "socialism".

Thus Social Security is analogous to a retirement savings account a couple set up in their early 20s, with a hidden "catch" in the contract. Although the couple planned on taking out $3000 a month at retirement, at that time the banker could say, "I'm only going to allow you to withdraw a maximum of $1,000 a month. But just think how fast your money will continue to grow!"

(and if the Government is operating as a deficit the result will be to switch the non-tradeable trust fund securities
into public treasury bonds/notes.)

It might not contribute in an accounting sense, but it has an impact on our economic wellbeing

But, they need to make up for that by increasing taxes on upper end, slashing military spending., investing in future, and other similar stuff.

locking it in a safe-deposit box, and then claiming that financially I'm all set for retirement.