A question regarding SS in respect to rest of debt owed ??

Bush is saying the IOUs for SS are going to put a burden on the taxpayers to try and pay it back when baby boomers retire. Now, as I understand it, SS is not the majority owed on outstanding debt? So, if we have $8 trillion in total debt and $2 trillion of that is in SS funds, how do we pay the rest of the debt?? If SS is a problem, would not the rest of the debt be an even bigger problem?? If we can't pay the IOUs on the SS, how are we going to pay the rest of the debt? Can someone explain this, please?

The only "crisis" is that Congress isn't going to be able to rob overpayments to fudge the numbers on what tax cuts to fat pigs who don't need them have done to the treasury. Social Security was always meant to be pay as you go.

What needs to be done is first removing that earnings cap and forcing the rich to pay back what they stole and second, finding a way to keep Congress's mitts off any and all overpayments.

The debt caused by giving the rich a free ride IS the problem, and the poor have been robbed for over 20 years to mask that problem.

It's high damned time we force the rich to pay us back. It's ours. They stole it.

You see, the 6T is owed to the rich and powerful while the 2T is owed to you and me. OK? Any more questions?


They can't have their tax-cut party if us geezer-boomers keep insisting that our SS surplus actually gets used to meet SS obligations.

GIPPIES UNITE!

I am officially forming the Geezer International Party. Has anybody seen abbie? Vot? he died? Oy.

If we are saying that we can't honor the SS debt, are we saying we cannot honor all of our debt? What are those that hold our debt (the Chinese, Japanese, etc.)thinking when they hear that? And what are they going to do?

The Long-term bonds "mature" around 2018. Mature means, they have to start paying back the those Maturing Bonds, which the Rich bastards don't want to do.:mad:

the SS IOUs are the same. They are not all paid off at the same time. I'm sure that would be their argument but it doesn't hold water.

...that we are doing today (and for the last 4 years) are the ones maturing in 2018. Why is that so hard to believe?

Pre-2001 tax cuts, we had starting buying back debt.:shrug:

The debt that Bush and the Repubs have run up in the 4 years is so humongous, including borrowing from the SS fund, that they have finally seen the light. Somebody has to pay. So why don't we make it disappear so we can keep our big taxcut? Why should we have to pay off the money we have borrowed? Yes, you are correct. We had started buying back debt pre-2001.

There is no SS fund and there has never been one. The checks come out of the money collected in this year's taxes. When the boomers (myself included) retire, there will be a much higher ratio of collectors to payers. Right now SS takes in a little more than it pays out. That won't last long once us 50 something boomers retire.

There may be some bonds floating around, but that's just a shell game. That is the government buying bonds from itself. The only way to pay them is with taxes. So...

Any extra SS collections have gone to the general fund and are gone forever. It has always been that way as far as I know.

Do they raise taxes to pay them off also??

Either that or simply print more T-bills and borrow more money to pay off the previous borrowing. In the long run, the only way to pay off the debt (and SS, Medicare, etc.) is to generate more tax revenue or spend less.

If our kids want to collect SS, one of several things (or a combination) must happen.

1. Higher tax rates.
2. Higher SS payment ceiling incomes.
3. Higher retirement age.
4. Smaller benefits.
5. Invest and earn some interest.
6. Big economic growth generating more tax payments without increasing tax rates.
7. Spend less in other areas.

I'm sure there are a couple of other possibilities, but I think I've covered the major solutions. Bush has chosen #5 and #6. Since #6 is an unknown, he's got all of his eggs in one basket. So far, our plan has been #2, a good start, but not enough to solve the problem for our children. Bush says he is willing to consider #2 as well, but has made no proposals.

I think it is our job to come up with a comprehensive, positive plan to solve the problem. Personally, I'd like to see some combination of all 7 items on my list.

It was OUR FICA SURPLUS they got in the first place. Get your damned money back.

If we want to cut spending from there, fine. But this time get a PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY, like John Kerry suggested way back in 2002. Then, if they want to cut federal and corporate taxes further, they won't be taking it from the money we have been paying in excess FICA taxes since we began working.

"But this time get a PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY, like John Kerry suggested way back in 2002."

I can't see how a tax cut is going to solve a fund shortage problem.

My whole point is that most people are under the mistaken impression that their payroll tax is being credited to their account and the money is being held for them until retirement. They are very wrong. There money is gone before they pay it.

The $1100 a month my mom was making on SS covered about 5 days of nursing home care. Medicare was worthless. If she hadn't had 2 private pensions and a couple of IRA annuities, she would have been penniless and homeless. It's going to be twice as bad for our kids.

If they're going to pretend excess payroll taxes aren't real, then I don't want to let them have them at all.

Nobody is under the impression their payroll taxes are being credited to an account. That's a load of shit George Bush is feeding. We were under the impression that paying excess FICA taxes since 1982 would be respected and paid back. We did not expect Bush to give the money to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts and then turn around and be told FICA was a drawer full of worthless IOU's.

The trust fund is bankrupt in 2052?? No, there's just no more excess FICA taxes going into the federal pot, that's all. If they had no intention of honoring those "IOU's", they should have told us 25 years ago and given us a payroll tax deduction instead of continuing to use our excess FICA taxes to fund the federal govt. If they're not going to honor those "IOU's" in the future, then cut my damned payroll taxes NOW and let people know how much those tax cuts to the wealthy are really adding to the federal debt.

When Alan Greenspan and the beloved President Reagan "fixed" SS in anticipation of the day the boomers would retire. We've been paying in something like an "extra" 1 1/2 percent (employer/employee combined) to build up a cushion. Last year alone, an extra $150 Billion was taken from working people.

So, in essence, the gummit has been taking money from the working classes under false pretenses and giving it to Bush's campaign contributors. It's Robin Hood in Reverse. If the little 'tater really thought we should keep more of our money like he said, he would have REDUCED THE HIGH PAYROLL TAXES, which would have put more money in our pockets and encouraged employers to hire more workers.

Face it. They're crooks.

Yup. To my knowledge, every administration since and including Roosevelt used the SS surplus. There is no fund. It's gone. The whole idea that you are putting your own money aside for your retirement is complete bullshit. It always has been.

The surplus is used to purchase t-bills which are accounted for JUST LIKE THE ONES RICH PEOPLE BUY. The federal government is CONSTITUTIONALLY OBLIGATED to pay those bonds back, JUST LIKE THE ONES RICH PEOPLE BUY.

You have been lied to repeatedly. That does not make the lies true.

Yes. The surplus buys T-bills and the money used to buy the T-bills is spent on general fund stuff. When the treasury borrows from itself, there is no fund.

There is no SS fund. There is no money in any SS fund. There has never, to my knowledge, been any SS fund. The only way SS recipients get paid is with this year's taxes.

The trust fund is invested in US treasury bonds, just like Japan and China.

It earns interest on those bonds, just like Japan and China.

The debt is accounted for in the federal budget, just like the debt to Japan and China. Look it up.

That's a good thing for national security, since it's better for the debt to be held by Americans rather than foreign banks.

allowed the gummint to use them to help pay for tax cuts and the war in iraq. these are the funds (granted, only on paper now) that would pay for bennies in spite of the declining base. that's why ss would stay solvent until 2042 (or 2052). as someone elsewhere said, if we were to raise the min wage, we could go a long way to building up the ss trust funds. we should also raise the cap.

i don't want to see raising the tax or raising the retirement age. sh*t, i've already been in the work force for 38 years and i'm 12 years away from retirement now! at this rate, i will have worked for 50 years before i get to retire . . . if i live that long. you also have to remember that these figures are based on retiress living for a certain length of time. raising the retirement age reduces that expectation.

does anyone remember when you got to retire after 20 years?!

ellen fl

wants to think that the system will eventually right itself. The idea that the system will sink is not even an option in his mind.

Exactly Kentuck. I'm just taking a break from gathering the numbers right now. If the federal government can't pay back the SS T-BILLS (please don't use the RW word "IOU"), then it's the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that is bankrupt, not social security.

pension fund, just like his former idol Ken Lay, and probably with the same result.

waaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! :cry: