Defending the Truth

This stuff is too confusing to me. It's no wonder I stay away from this section...

I easily get lost in this stuff also. I have to take it in small doses.

Since social security was implemented, I think that all presidents have used excess funds gathered from social security taxes to pay for other programs. It seems to me like this is generally better practice than going into debt.

Clinton is a little bit different since he saved his budget surplus in order to back up social security. (This backup money for social security was later spent by the current administration).

In a Conference on Social Security report entitled "Social Security in the United States - 1938", Arthur A. Ballantine, former Under Secretary of the United States Department of Treasury, stated that under the Social Security Act a "great reserve is to be built up by billions of dollars which are to be taken from the payroll taxes over and above the amounts needed for current payments for old age benefits." But, he added: "The payroll taxes today are used to meet the miscellaneous expenditures of the government and do not, as far as I can see, in any way promote the ultimate security of old age." And this already in the year 1938.

James P. Gannon, writer of a column in the Detroit News, 5 February 1989, called it a "Social Security shell game" by which the huge surpluses accumulated since 1985 are being borrowed by the federal government to cover a large part of its huge operating deficit. He states: "The surplus, in other words, is being spent on national defense, welfare payments and other government outlays. What Social Security holds, in place of its surplus, is a growing hoard of federal IOUs - Treasury notes and bonds that represent its huge loans to the spending side of the government." He stated that Senator Riegle noted that the true federal deficit is being masked by an accounting trick, warning that soon the people will figure out that they are going to be asked to pay twice for their Social Security benefits; once in payroll taxes now, and again in the future when income taxes have to be raised to replace the borrowed-and-spent surpluses.

In a report before the Joint Economics Committee of 27 May 1976 by W. Allen Wallis, Chancellor, University of Rochester and Chairman of the 1975 Advisory Council on Social Security, it was noted: "Many people think that the Social Security taxes taken out of their wages and sent to Washington each month provide for their old-age pensions and other Social Security benefits. This simply is not the case. Those taxes are levied on workers in order to pay benefits to people who already have retired and are drawing their Social Security pensions, or to pay other Social Security benefits to those who already are drawing them ...When you pay Social Security taxes you are in no way making provision for your own retirement. You are paying the pensions of those who already are retired.

Once you understand this, you see that whether you will get the benefits you are counting on when you retire depends on whether the Congress will levy enough taxes, borrow enough, or print enough money, and whether it will authorize the level of benefits you are counting on.

The situation is in no way analogous to putting money each month into a private insurance company which invests it and undertakes to pay you an annuity.

Misunderstanding of the pay-as-you-go nature of Social Security is widespread among journalists and the public. Indeed, this misunderstanding seems to have been deliberately cultivated sometimes, in the belief that it makes the Social Security System more palatable to the public."

Although the present day literature from the administrators of the Social Security system declare that the system was "Conceived as a compact between generations", the facts are that the system was sold to the public as a trust fund program, where one would pay a premium of insurance, as in an annuity, and a fund would be established in his name for his use at retirement, or disablement. Funds taken in by the treasury are put into "earmark" accounts, like the social security account, and etc. Then, they are shifted from one account to another as deemed necessary by government to cover "expenses".

Corporations are deserting America; not paying fair share of taxes yet reaping benefits.

Republican policies have made us WEAK militarily, diplomatically, economically, environmentally, and in homeland security.

Hear hear!

The issue of whether or not any other country is stronger militarily is under debate, because it is all circumstantial. It doesn't matter if you have the strongest and most advanced military when your forces and resources are strained, or if you're facing an enemy that out numbers you many times over (thinking of China).

Many countries know we are strained in Iraq, militarily. That is why they are pushing the envelope. Countries like Iran, Syria, and North Korea know they have a lot more room to do what they want, because the US has lost a lot of cards to play by being weakened considerably by reckless policies as intangablechild has already pointed out.

If counties like I ran, Syria and North Korea are not aware that the US Military could blast them back into the Dark Ages - even though we're in Iraq - they're utterly stupid and blind.

I've never heard of the backup money that was supposed to be "paid to SS"??

Also, how is spending everyones retirement money a better practice than going into debt?? The money should NOT be spent on anything other than the social security of every American citizen. Common sense.