Remember when Al Gore talked about putting Social Security into a ''Lock Box''?

No wonder SCOTUS wouldn't let him win.

SCOTUS must have had its marching orders pre-Bush v. Gore...

And, as some great DUer said, "You don't steal elections to do good things in office."

When they weren't starting wars for profit, Bush and his cronies -- the BFEE -- were busy stealing pretty much everything they could get their hands on and writing and using every law on the books to grab what wasn't nailed down or built into the ground. Of coure, they're still working on that part, too.

I guess I've never heard that one.

Besides being, at essence, a generally decent human being, Gore makes considered decisions.

What we endured from 2001-2009 was nothing short of criminal. George Walker Bush lied America into two illegal, immoral and unnecessary wars.

At best, Bush is criminally derelict. Most likely, Bush is a traitor.

What makes me furious, today, is the guy should be in prison. And he's not.

What do you think the SSA *should* have done with the surplus cash?

Because Social Security had already paid out everything it needed to. That's why it was a surplus. So they had this extra cash and nothing to spend it on. What should they have done with it?

The surplus was loaned back to the government, who used it to pay for everything else, including Medicare and Medicaid.

In the meantime, the bush government was increasing the deficit by trillions.

What has happened is that the 2.5 trillion owed to SS is commingled with the total deficit sum.
A sum which is 13.5 trillion. If you subtract the 2.5 trillion owed SS the sum is 11 trillion, yes?

The argument goes, if we remove the obligations that SS was set up to deliver, the money paid into the SS funds can be used elsewhere in the government and be made to APPEAR to reduce the deficit.

Either way, it is the Treasury that has to come up with the money. The effect on the deficit is zero, unless we assume that had the SSA *not* bought the funds, that the government would *not* have spent as much, which is, I think, not plausible.

They got you running in a circle. And endless circle of spend and spend.

The "Deficits don't matter" circle.

Well, do deficits matter, or not?

****************

BTW, seems the deficit before bush was @ `2.5 trillion, just about what was owed SS, eh?

That's externally-held debt.

That we owe SS 2.5T as an internal debt that has been added to the overall deficit?

But it is not typically included in the "national debt" numbers.

in the national debt numbers.

Segregating Social Security by accounting standards instead of pooling it all together so the mega-wealthy could get tax breaks.

Uncle Joe. :hi:

Peace to you and have a good weekend.:hi:

weekend as well. :pals:

:fistbump:

any surplus SS collected *must*, by the original SS legislation, be invested in US securities, i.e. borrowed into the federal budget.

There is no "lockbox" & *can't* be. What would you do with segregated SS money, invest it in the stock market? Buy real estate? Take a flyer on a Broadway play? The only thing the Feds can do with the money they collect is spend it on the usual purposes of government: salaries, guns, parks, health care, whatever. If the money is spent well, it's an investment in the country.

When the Reagan-Greenspan Commission recommended increasing SS taxes to fund a growing surplus -- supposedly in order to "prefund" the boomers' retirements -- they knew what they were doing.

So did the bipartisan Congress that voted on the legislation. Gore was there; he didn't vote. He could have voted "No". Most of the liberal Dems voted for it, or didn't vote. Few voted no. They all knew the score, or should have.

But they voted for collecting more than was needed to fund SS from workers, and made up a phoney story to confuse them about what was happening.

Then some of them voted to cut rich people's taxes -- under Reagan, under Bush 2.

Two different operations.

Why can we always count on our government to mislead us on a wide variety of issues? It goes from one obfuscation event to another, and it never stops, from the Gulf of Tonkin to the 2,000 election.

in regards to the national debt numbers from an accounting standpoint?

The post I was replying to stated they weren't.

"But it is not typically included in the "national debt" numbers."

I never suggested not investing surplus Social Security funds in to US securities but those securities should be counted as part of the national debt, that's what I'm referring to by segregation.

In 2000 Gore knew what Bush 2; would do should he come to power, give unsustainable tax breaks to the mega-wealthy causing a financial and economic crisis setting the stage for a raid on Social Security.

foreign debt, & internal debt. debt to the SS TF is included as part of total & internal debt. you can access the numbers on the web.

i believe the article is referring to the media's complete fail on covering the issue, except to goose the policy du jour their sponsors are pushing that day. when it suits their purposes they quote the disaggregated figures, when it suits their purposes they quote the total figures.

what the media publicizes has only a loose relationship to what the gov is actually doing. Media's purpose is not to inform, but to steer. To that end, it lies, confuses issues, & neglects to mention critical context. Cant' rely on media reports if you really want truth & facts, or even basic understanding of an issue.



http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm

http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html

to decline as it is now.

Every job that is lost means lower tax revenue including lower Social Security tax revenue.

The private sector has money but is not investing it in the U.S. The Bush tax cuts effectively shifted the burden of paying the debt among other government expenses to the poorest, including the less wealthy in the middle class.

That burden needs to be shifted so that the money that the private sector is hoarding or investing overseas comes back to be invested here.

If I could have gotten a job, a job in which the infirmities and inefficiencies of age would be accepted, at the age that I became eligible for Social Security, I would still be working. But there aren't any jobs.

If the economy grows, there will be jobs, the debt will not be a problem, and we can once again become a thriving nation.

But we have to change our trade policy if we want to balance the budget and pay off our debts.

Ask any American who has paid off a large debt, it takes a lot of patience, a lot of time. You do not cut necessities. You cut the frills. Social Security is a necessity. A lot of our military expenditures are not necessities. The huge salaries to Wall Street guys -- bonuses on which they pay virtually not taxes, for example, and the tax breaks for big corporations, are frills. They are not necessities. We should be cutting the frills, no the necessities. That's how you bring a household into financial order.

You don't got to gourmet restaurants if you want to get out of debt. But you don't stop eating. You try to get balance in your life. You return to your core values. Obama's Commission did not address values. Bowles and Simpson are just mean, despicable rich guys. They need to read some history.

was fraudulent.

It shouldn't have been done.

And IMO, it was done in order to get our present result, in order to destroy the program.

You do realize that inflation causes the value of cash to depreciate over time? That would mean that "trust fund" would get a NEGATIVE return on value. That's why generally speaking, huge sums of money are not stuffed into mattresses as a long-term investment strategy.

which would come in really handy right now.

Literally stuff cash into a big safe? Holding onto cash is extremely *risky*, because if inflation spikes the cash loses a lot of its value and your trust fund is worth a fraction of what it was.

vs. the stock market.

They invested in Treasury bonds, with a small, guaranteed rate of return.

The fact is only one thing has ever been done with the SSA surplus: purchase Treasury bonds. The argument about what the Treasury uses the proceeds of those sales for is just the same old argument about government spending.

Yes, the social security surplus "flowed" into the U.S. Treasury. How did it do this? Because it bought, with cash, Treasury bonds from the Treasury. So Treasury shows a profit from the sale of the bond to the SSA, and, like all Treasury proceeds, is used to pay for general government expenditures. So now that they need to cash in those bonds, Treasury has to come up with the money to buy them back. This sucks now, but is entirely expected. That is how it was *designed* to work for a very good reason: what else is the trust fund supposed to do with surplus cash?

Which brings me back to my original point. What do you think should have happened with the excess cash, of years gone by?

The only thing that they could have done differently would have been to buy bonds in things that the Treasury is not responsible for paying back, like corporate bonds or foreign countries' bonds. Of course, those options have their own problems.

Again, read what I've posted above.

than the situation as described by the debt commission.

unspent at the end of the month from your checking account, do you rush right out and find something to spend it on? Or do you hold it back to build the downpayment for that new car that you know you are going to need in a couple years?

That's all the 'lockbox' was - a place where the money is held in reserve for expected future expenses - like, the boomers aging out.

It was NEVER a 'surplus'.

When I put money in a savings account, I am actually "investing" in the bank. Is that what you think should have been done with the social security surplus? Invest in banks? No? What then? Shove the cash into a big vault? Is that what *you* do with your extra money? Do you realize how risky that is?

What is this "place" that you refer to where the money would be "held?" Is this a literal building somewhere, or what? A mattress depository to shove hundred-dollar bills under?

Those jerks in charge have been using THE PEOPLES MONEY to cover their bad decisions and mistakes for years and years and now they are frantically trying to change the rules and steal the money outright to cover their own asses! :grr:

by the M$M for what they are-thieves.

You would be amazed at how much compounded interest accumulates over several years!

how Clinton balanced the budget? He borrowed the money from the SS pool to close the gap.

so we wouldn't have to hear lies about how it is "broken"

The surplus was meant to cover the retirement of the Baby Boomers. That's been done until at the very least, 2037 or longer. And if the economy improves it WILL be longer. That money is only for the people.

What should be done with people's savings accounts? Buying treasury bonds was a good investment of the money. SS receives income from three sources, not just from SS income taxes. One of them is the interest on Treasury Bonds.

It was never meant to be borrowed for wars or bailouts or to pay for Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Only one thing was ever done with the SSA surplus: purchase Treasury bonds. What the Treasury did with the proceeds from those sales is an entirely different issue. When people say that it was "borrowed" for this thing or that thing, they are only saying that the proceeds from the bond sales were used as general government spending. Which they were. But it begs the question, what then *should* have been done with that cash?

discussing projected shortages because "that cash" would have been in a "lock box".

I've expanded on the meaning, in more than one post.

You've only said it should be "re-invested" without saying *IN WHAT*!!!!!!

big idea. Got one?

That is what a Treasury bond is: a guaranteed-return bond.

Are you saying that they should have bought bonds from someone who would promise not to spend the money from the proceeds of the bond sale on anything? Who, exactly, would issue such a bond?

My "big idea" is to either spend less money, or raise revenues, so that Treasury can afford to buy back the bonds from the trust fund.

they spent it.

How do you wish to spend less or raise more revenues? And, which do you prefer?

You don't just "set" hundreds of billions of dollars "aside." You can't file it away in desk drawer. You have to *do something* with it. And I don't mean generally, like "save it," or "spend it," I mean specifically, HOW do you save it. Your only suggestion is to put it into some kind of mysterious "account," somewhere, that somehow guarantees a return, but isn't a Treasury bond. I mean, why not suggest they should just buy gold, at least that would make some sense.

As for the budget: I favor both raising taxes on the wealth *and* cutting spending in many areas.

Read what he said, and what I posted above ... again.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/abuse-of-the-social-security-trust-fund-began-in-the-1980s/

The plan was that when benefit costs start to exceed payroll tax revenue, in about seven years, the Social Security trustees would begin dipping into the huge reserve that was supposed to be built up in the trust fund to make up the revenue shortfall in order to continue to pay full benefits.

"Investing" in something means *buying* something with the expectation that it will increase in value. To date, that has been Treasury Bonds. You keep intimating that they should be buying something else, but won't say what. There is no magical unicorn bond that is 100% safe and has a 100% guaranteed return. Treasury bonds are about the closest thing to that exists.

Treasury bonds are fine, if the government isn't robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The "funds" in the "trust fund" are U.S. Treasury Bonds! Do you think it should be something else? If so, what? Cash? Gold? Stocks? WHAT?!??

should have been set aside vs. spent. I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult for you?

What you are suggesting is that the U.S. Treasury should have sat on a pile of cash AT THE SAME TIME it is running a massive deficit. So instead of spending this money - which, keep in mind, *depreciates* massively over long periods due to inflation - they should have borrowed MORE money from China.

It would be *exactly* like putting your rent on your credit card, instead of paying it with the cash in your pocket, and calling that "setting money aside!"

Now, if you want to argue that maybe Congress shouldn't have been running deficits, I can agree with you there! But at this point we're talking about spending and budget policy, NOT management of the Social Security trust fund. The bottom line is it *wasn't* the Social Security trust fund that was mismanaged, it was the FEDERAL BUDGET.

mismanaged. However, we agree that Republicans, should not have allowed Bush to drag this country into mass debt.

deleted.

If they had handled the funds from SS correctly, this country would have a surplus and not a 13.5 trillion dollar deficit.

Instead, SS was looked upon as a source of easy money and was treated as such. Easy come, easy go.

Be specific, please. We know what *was* done: purchase U.S. Treasury bonds. According to you, this was "incorrect." So please, what should have been done instead.

The stock market?

The monies should have been reinvested vs. spent.

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2010/09/social_security_5.htm

Something else happened in 1983 that would have a much bigger impact on the future of Social Security than the Cato Institue and the Heritage Foundation, combined. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 included a hefty payroll tax increase that was supposed to "fix" Social Security. The baby boomers were required to prepay most of the cost of their own benefits, in addition to paying for the benefits of the generation that preceded them. That 1983 payroll tax hike has generated $2.54 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue, that was supposed to be saved and invested so that it would be available for paying benefits to the baby boomers. If the intent of the law had been followed, and the surplus revenue had been saved and invested, Social Security would be able to pay full benefits until at least 2037. BUT NONE OF THE MONEY WAS SAVED OR INVESTED IN ANYTHING! Instead,every dollar of the $2.54 trillion was "borrowed" or "stolen" (whichever word you prefer) by the government and spent on tax cuts for the rich, wars, and other government programs. Enough taxes have been collected to pay full benefits until 2037, but those tax dollars have already been spent on other things. For more information, please visit my website at www.thebiglie.net.

I'll await your ideas on what should have happened.

If the only deficit we had was what we owed to SS then we'd be fine.

The fiscal path Clinton had us on was the correct way to borrow money.
The bush way got us here, in this ditch, right?

The "problem" of the Social Security Trust Fund is, at bottom, simply the "problem" that the U.S. Government doesn't have enough money to pay for all its spending.

used by the Government? What should have been done with them? I already told you. SS benefits should have been raised since that is what they are for, if they could not think of anything to do with them other than paying for wars and to bail out corrupt Wall St. gamblers.

They were never meant to be used by the government, they were meant to be used only for and by the people who own them. What should anyone do with a savings account? Allow anyone who gets into debt to borrow from it? Are companies allowed to dip into pension funds?

What do you think should have been done? You are in favor of the Government using that fund to pay for wars etc.?

So if they had spent the surplus on additional benefits:

1. The government would have had to borrow more money from outside sources to pay for its spending, adding to the national debt.
2. Now that the surplus has dried up, we would have to come up with EVEN MORE money to cover the difference.

You don't think the bank actually takes your savings account money and keeps it in a safe, do you? No, they loan that money out to other people. They invest it. Are companies allowed to dip into pension funds? What is in a typical pension fund? Bonds, right? When you buy a bond from a company, or from the Treasury, is your expectation that they just take your money, shove it in a vault, then give it back to you later, plus interest, out of the goodness of their hearts? No, actually, they use that money for things like building factories and buying office equipment, hiring people and making a profit - or, in the case of government, bombing people and bailing out banks.

If you don't want anyone using your savings for anything at all, shove it in a coffee can and bury it in the back yard.

If we assume that the government was going to spend the money blowing things up *either way*, and that nobody will tolerate tax increases, it makes sense to borrow that money from social security instead of borrowing the money from China. The REAL solution is to STOP SPENDING MONEY on blowing shit up, or at least RAISE SOME REVENUE TO PAY FOR IT.

spared the thread a lot of grief.

talking point and should not be spread around as if it were true. The SS fund is backed by the 'full faith and credit' of the U.S. Government. If what you are saying were true, the rest of the U.S.'s creditors would panic and that would totally collapse this government.

When the bank uses people's money it has to pay it back, and it is guaranteed that it will be paid back.

You have built a strawman and proceeded to amuse yourself by knocking it down. Every example you gave does NOT prove your point at all, in fact it contradicts your claim that the SS Fund 'has dried up'.

No one except you, claimed that money put into accounts isn't invested. The claim was that those holding the money cannot just 'steal it', as you are accusing the U.S. government of doing but only with the SS fund. Have they also stolen China's investments? The rest of their creditors' investments? Are they asking China eg, to foot the bill for the money they stole from China?

No, they are asking only one of their creditors, the American people, to do that. It is a ludicrous suggestion and should be treated that way.

The government will pay it back, UNLESS we allow them to put it off by helping them to keep increasing the fund by cutting benefits so they can keep giving themselves tax breaks and funding wars etc.

You are very generous with other people's money. Sorry, I am not inclined to encourage gamblers to avoid doing what is necessary to pay off their debts.

By that I simply mean that the amount collected in payroll taxes did not exceed the benefits paid out. This has in fact happened. It has nothing to do with the trust fund. And if you paid attention, you would notice that *I* am the one who has been arguing all along that the trust fund *was* properly invested, that there was nothing underhanded about it at all. *I* have been arguing that the funds were NOT "stolen" or anything like that, it was treated *exactly* like bond sales to anyone else!

This is separate and aside from the ability of the U.S. to pay back *all* of its creditors, which is questionable.

You wrote, on another thread:
"It's also worth noting that while Treasury is obligated to buy the bonds back, they are NOT ordinary bonds like what China holds,"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9545728&mesg_id=9546202

And here you wrote:
"*I* have been arguing that the funds were NOT "stolen" or anything like that, it was treated *exactly* like bond sales to anyone else!"

Hmmmm, getting hard for you to keep track of all your postings?

They are just different kinds of bonds, just like you can buy a 2 year Treasury or a 30 year Treasury.

the benefits paid. However, this has happened many times over the past several decades, so it's not new. But the overall surplus DID exceed the benefits paid out since SS has two other sources of income. So, to simply point to payroll taxes as if they are SS's only source of income, is incorrect. To leave that out leaves the impression that there was no surplus this past year, when in fact there was.

And sorry if I misunderstood your position as I agree on the rest of your post.

:rofl:

NOT ABOUT THE SSA TRUST FUND.

. . . you are completely correct, of course, in all that you've been saying regarding the nature of the Social Security trust fund, how the system actually works, etc. But you've run up against almost invincible ignorance when it comes to these matter. People just don't get it, and don't want to, apparently.

They were "loaned" to the Federal government, and promptly spent. Please engage with the basic facts. :hi:

I'm all ears. Don't keep us in suspense!

Here's a basic fact for you: the SSA, like any other purchaser of Treasury bonds, has no control whatsoever with what Congress does with the money from the sale of those bonds. So blaming the bond-buying policy for bad spending decisions on Congress' part is a complete non-sequitur.

"ere's a basic fact for you: the SSA, like any other purchaser of Treasury bonds, has no control whatsoever with what Congress does with the money from the sale of those bonds. So blaming the bond-buying policy for bad spending decisions on Congress' part is a complete non-sequitur."

Blame? We're talking about the basic facts of the matter, not who is to "blame". Also, that's not what "non-sequitur" means. :hi:

"ere's a basic fact for you: the SSA, like any other purchaser of Treasury bonds, has no control whatsoever with what Congress does with the money from the sale of those bonds. So blaming the bond-buying policy for bad spending decisions on Congress' part is a complete non-sequitur."

Blame? We're talking about the basic facts of the matter, not who is to "blame". Also, that's not what "non-sequitur" means. :hi:

The argument is that Al Gore's "lock-box" would "somehow" have prevented the current situation. In fact, it wouldn't have changed anything at all and the whole "lock-box" metaphor was ill-advised. Followed on by a bunch of people blaming Congress/Bush/TPTB for "stealing" the trust fund, which I don't think you can deny is blame-casting, and totally erroneous to boot.

"In fact, it wouldn't have changed anything at all and the whole "lock-box" metaphor was ill-advised."

It's silly to speculate.

" Followed on by a bunch of people blaming Congress/Bush/TPTB for "stealing" the trust fund, which I don't think you can deny is blame-casting, and totally erroneous to boot."

They didn't "steal" it. They spent it. Fact. No "blaming" involved. No speculation involved. The money is gone. :hi:

I'm arguing against this idea that $NEFARIOUS_EVILDOER somehow sneakily and ruthlessly pillaged the Holy Trust Fund. The trust was designed to hold U.S. Treasuries, it did hold U.S. Treasuries. That's the system we set up. Tempting though it might be to blame political opponents, it's just not true.

Furthermore, I am trying to push back against the idea that there was some obvious better way of managing the trust fund. That's why I keep asking, if it wouldn't hold U.S. Treasury bonds, then what? I hate it when folks act like they're so smart, the answer is so simple, it's just the $NEFARIOUS_EVILDOER! Sorry folks, it's not that simple. You're wrong, putting a trillion dollars in a safe is a stupid idea, especially when you're already spending money you don't have.

Frankly, the whole trust fund is a big RED HERRING. I may do a post about this. In fact, it ends up making absolutely no fiscal difference WHATSOEVER. If the trust fund never existed (assuming the amounts taxed and spent remained the same), we would be in EXACTLY the same situation. When it comes down to taxing, spending, and borrowing, it is utterly irrelevant, and since taxing, spending, and borrowing are the things that people really care about, as opposed to accounting-book legerdemain, that makes it a red herring.

"I'm arguing against this idea that $NEFARIOUS_EVILDOER somehow sneakily and ruthlessly pillaged the Holy Trust Fund. The trust was designed to hold U.S. Treasuries, it did hold U.S. Treasuries. That's the system we set up. Tempting though it might be to blame political opponents, it's just not true."

Seems like you're trying to defend the status quo as ideal when it clearly is not.

"Furthermore, I am trying to push back against the idea that there was some obvious better way of managing the trust fund. That's why I keep asking, if it wouldn't hold U.S. Treasury bonds, then what?"

If the system is 100% financed by current workers' contributions (as it is,) the obvious answer would've been NOT to have amassed bogus "surpluses" which where then diverted to wars of choice and tax cuts for the rich via the idiotic "lending" arrangement whereby one government account is forwarded onto another.

"If the trust fund never existed (assuming the amounts taxed and spent remained the same), we would be in EXACTLY the same situation.'

Right. So arguing that the way it's been handled is optimal is ridiculous.

But it has nothing to do with the trust fund. And on what basis do you say that it was spent specifically on only bad things? Every dollar is fungible, so I could just as legitimately claim it was entirely spent on reducing the deficit and providing health care to children. Why do you want little children to die AND the deficit to go up!!? Defend that if you will!

I am in a way arguing that *so far as the trust fund* is concerned, and everything else ceteris paribus, the status quo *is* the optimal situation. Which isn't to say it is a *good* situation, but it is what it is and it could be worse. Your suggestion that the surpluses NOT have been collected in the first place isn't obviously better because the spending that took place would then have had to have been financed at higher interest rates via more public debt. I.e., every dollar of surplus borrowed from social security is a dollar that we didn't have to borrow from China. There's a slim possibility we may simply have spent less as a result; I guess the lesson there is that Republicans are right about "starving the beast?" I don't think so.

I haven't yet heard any proposal from anyone that wouldn't be politically unacceptable and have obviously resulted in a better status quo. The closest - maybe - would be if they had invested in corporate bonds. Of course, nobody here has suggested doing so, and they won't, because it's a Republican idea and therefore tainted, not to mention that we only now know in hindsight that it would have been more profitable.

In an ideal world the payroll tax would have been lower and the top end of the income tax would have been higher at the same time. But again, this is now a criticism of taxation policy, not trust fund management. The fiction of a massive trust fund that could be drawn upon later by the government was a fiction that politicians on all sides enjoyed maintaining. Al Gore certainly was no exception.

"When it comes down to taxing, spending, and borrowing, it is utterly irrelevant, and since taxing, spending, and borrowing are the things that people really care about, as opposed to accounting-book legerdemain, that makes it a red herring."

People on this board have proven that to be a false claim. That makes your entire post a red herring.

So that there would be so much extra surplus then raised the cap so future would be covered. Instead it was used to give tax breaks to the 2% ers.

Invest in creating new industries, oh, I don't know, like "Renewable Energy" or "De-Pollution Technologies." Smarter people than I can come up with a million more ideas. It'd be better than using the money in building more B-2s at a billion-plus per.

Of course, with all the new industries, we'd need a lot of new workers. They would mean a lot of new money going into the Social Security fund. Which is also a good thing.

My understanding of Gore’s “lockbox” plan was to buy up public debt with the surplus money. The interest that would have gone to banks, countries, and individuals would go back to Social Security and Medicare. They would use the new surplus and the interest to buy more government bonds, which would be used to buy more public debt. With a balance budget, the surplus from these programs was distorted by republicans as being just extra money that should be given back to the people as tax cuts or the government would waste it. So Gore’s “lockbox” was him saying that the government would not spend this money on any other government program except for his plan. This was a big issue and I may not have it all right, but it was more than just a vault full of cash.


Edit-changed private to public and wanted to say that public debt in this means government bonds that are sold to people, banks, and countries.

Of course, since the government was already spending more than it was collecting in revenues (check the numbers, the national debt never decreased), it would have made no difference whatsoever. The surplus would have retired some public debt and the Treasury department would promptly re-issue it, because it actually needed the money. And even if we assume that Gore would have balanced the budget and run surpluses, it still wouldn't have made any real difference. Whether a given dollar is spent on X instead of Y or Y instead of X, the total amount spent is still X+Y, right? So whether income taxes are used to buy fighter jets and trust fund surplus used to retire the debt, or trust fund surpluses used to buy fighter jets and income taxes to retire the debt, (assuming the cost of fighter jets doesn't change) the debt is reduced by the exact same amount either way.

No doubt Maureen Dowd wrote a snarkey column about it for the NYT.

There are some things I just can't let go of.

Here's something MoDo and The New York Times failed to mention:

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

The lockbox got cracked open and the loot's in Switzerland. Let's get it back.

in the crosshairs.

hands

History will continue to prove that...on edit: just realized Republicans wanted to kill of grannie and gramps way back then

Smedley Butler Stopped American Fascist Conspiracy to Overthrow FDR and Prescott Bush was one of the action figures. While he has passed, many of his offspring are still operative in every sense of the word.

It's what they do to the greats...

:shrug:

It was Bush who stole from the surplus.

There is NOTHING wrong with SS. It ran a surplus until last year.

The bottom line is that they want to steal from SS. They want to steal!!!

They got a system: Know your BFEE: Goldmine Sacked or The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One

they locked up the box, but the forgot to lock the box to the table so someone wouldnt steal the whole box

Well, 9-11, for one thing.

Hey! A most hearty welcome to DU, durkermaker!

they will never be able to stop themselves from doing it again and again...I KNOW that in the back of their "minds" is the idea, "All that money, and I can't get to it!"
I am sure it is frustrating as hell for them.

mark

Or has that been framed and renamed by the Republitards into something else by now?

Can't miss a chance.

invest it in the stock market. Just before he enabled the market crash.

Once they succeed in stealing Social Security, it's over. :grr:

liberal dems.

in my opinion, he's complicit & his lock-box talk was nonsense. he knows there's no lock-box, and can't be. the crucial decision was increasing SS taxes to create a growing surplus. He didn't vote, most likely so he wouldn't be on record as supporting or not supporting.

He should have voted no. Kennedy did the same thing, avoided the vote.

"Lock box" was a great laugh line, but Al was way ahead of the pack on that.

for the past several days.

are destroying all middle and lower classes and the planet Earth faster
than we can blink.

because what the Supremes did was unconstitutional and their action to seat Bush and stop the recounting seemed like a panicky move. Oh and the spin about dividing the country more due to recounting was a bold faced lie that those who promoted should be shamed.

...as the baby boomers retire.

they borrowed from SS to pay for Iraq, among other things. That is part of the national debt, what was pilfered from SS.

were diverted to wars, crony contracts for bushies, etc.

It is likely that the SS "trust fund" will never be fully paid to pensioners.

When I saw this catfood commission up close, I thought 'Gore was so right.'

It's why he lost - the non stop ridicule by the press laid the foundation for the big theft.

Deficit Reduction Scam & Social Security
http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3202&Itemid=2

over the locked box on Saturday Night Live. Those greedy fuckers won't stop until they get that money.

It was a big joke ..... though the joke was on the average American citizen.

Recommended.

Supreme Court.

They made the Constitution, the Court's integrity, and the will of the majority of voters a punch line.

:kick: