Congress proposes a chilling resolution on Social Security

November 4, 2015
Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

On August 14, 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt arrived at his desk to sign the Social Security Act into law.

It had been a contentious legislative process, something like the Obamacare of its day.

Fiscally conservative politicians derided the program for its obvious long-term costs, the massive bureaucracy that it would create, and the huge tax increase that it represented on workers.

But Roosevelt was able to find support, and the law was passed.

And just before signing it, he proudly proclaimed that the law would go down in history “as a protection to future administrations of the Government against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy.”

Needless to say, that didn’t happen. Quite the opposite, actually.

Just like most western governments, the US government has gone deeply into debt to fund its social insurance programs.

Officially, the US government is now $18.5 trillion in debt, and Social Security is the biggest financial sinkhole in America.

Social Security’s various trust funds currently hold about $2.7 trillion in total assets; yet the government itself estimates the program’s liabilities to exceed $40 trillion.

And Social Security’s second biggest trust fund, the Disability Insurance fund, will be fully depleted in a matter of weeks.

The trustees who manage these massive funds on behalf of the current and future retirees of America are clearly concerned.

In the 2015 report of the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees they state very plainly:

“Social Security as a whole as well as Medicare cannot sustain projected long-run program costs…”, and that the government should be “giving the public adequate time to prepare.”


Now, we always hear politicians say that ‘Social Security is going to be just fine’. So this Board of Trustees must be a bunch of wackos. Who are these guys anyhow?

The Treasury Secretary of the United States of America, as it turns out. Along with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Secretary of Labor. Etc.

These are the folks who sign their name to the report saying that Social Security is going bust, and that Congress needs to give people time to prepare.

And prepare they should.

The US Government Accountability Office recently released a report showing that tens of millions of Americans haven’t saved a penny for retirement; and roughly half of Baby Boomers have zero retirement savings.

This means that there’s an overwhelming number of Americans pinning all of their retirement hopes on Social Security.

Bad idea. In a recently proposed resolution, H. Res 488, Congress states point blank that Social Security “was never intended by Congress to be the sole source of retirement income for families.”

Apparently they got the message from the Social Security Trustees and they want to start preparing people for the inevitable truth.

This is no longer some wild conspiracy theory.

The Treasury Secretary is saying it. Congress is saying it. The numbers are screaming it: Social Security is going to fail.

Ultimately this is a just another chapter in the same story– that government cannot be relied on to provide or produce, only to squander and fail.

Sure, their intentions may be noble. But this level of serial incompetence can no longer be trusted, nor should we be foolish enough to believe that some new candidate can fix it.

If you’re in your fifties and beyond, you’re probably going to be OK and at least get 10-15 years of benefits.

If you’re in your 40s and below, you have to be 100% prepared to fend for yourself.

Fortunately you have time to recover. Time to build. And time to learn.

Financial literacy is absolutely critical here, which includes the ability to both generate income and manage money, two things that aren’t taught in the government controlled education system.

You might also consider some lifestyle adjustments, which may include moving abroad where your money can go much, much further.

Ultimately, learning to rely on yourself is no easy task, but it is an incredible opportunity to become more free.

And in doing so, one day you will no longer panic about the decisions being made by incompetent bureaucrats, because you will be the one in control of your own fate.

Congress proposes a chilling resolution on Social Security
Source: Pixabay
  • bulldog4857

    Of course you spout the same complete lack of understanding regarding finance that permeates comment boards. OF COURSE IT WAS SPENT! That’s what happens to investments. Someone borrows your money and spends it. Then they owe you. As I said, the investment is in US Treasury obligations (bonds) at interest. From the perspective of SSA this is in fact an investment that protects the value of the trust fund. Of the $2.8T in bond value about $1T represents compound interest that would otherwise not exist. A trust fund of $1.8T would last only about 10 years.

  • Mike Dills

    over 3 trillion dollars has been spent and that is a fact . take a look for yourself they took the money not to invest but to be spent in the general funds and took another few hundred million in the budget just weeks ago . look it up !

  • queue1114

    “This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous, if not we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is.”
    ~ Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager, Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta Georgia.

    “Debt. That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system,there would be no money.”
    ~ Marriner S. Eccles, Chairman and Governor of the Federal Reserve Board.

    “One thing to realize about our fractional reserve banking system, is that, like a child’s game of musical chairs, as long as the music keeps playing, there are no losers.”
    ~ Andrew Gaus, Money Historian.

    “I have yet to encounter anyone who could, through the use of logic and reason, justify the Federal Government borrowing the use of its own money. I believe there will come a time when people will demand that this be changed. I believe the time will come in this country when they will actually blame you and me and everyone else connected with congress for sitting idly by and permitting such an idiotic system to continue.”
    ~ Wright Patman, Democratic Congressman, 1928-1975, Chairman of Banking and Currency, 1963-1975.

    “The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit.”
    ~ Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, 1928-1941, in his Commencement address to the University of Texas, 1928.

    “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all of our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have become one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
    ~ Woodrow Wilson, 1919, Lamenting the passage of the Glass-Owen Bill AKA the Federal Reserve Act.

    “The Fed is a privately owned “for profit” corporation, with no reserves available to back up the “Federal Reserve Notes”, which is our common currency.”
    ~ Henry Pasquet, Economist and Author.

    “The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people’s money.”
    Rep Charles A. Lindberg, (R-Mn), 1921.

    “We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who own and control it.”
    Rep. Louis T. McFadden (D-Pa), former chairman of the house banking and economics committee, 1932.

    “The Federal Reserve has TOTAL control over the populous. Now many people challenge me on that, so let me prove my point…. The Federal Reserve determines what every person’s car payment is going to be, what their house payment is going to be, and whether they will have job or not. And I submit to you, that’s total control. The Federal Reserve is the single largest creditor of the United States government, and it is an axiom that the borrower is servant to the lender.”
    ~ Larry Bates, Former Bank CEO, Professor of Economics, Tennessee Central University, and Author of “The New Economic Disorder”.

    Seriously Bulldog, educate yourself. I could go on and on from many more authoritative sources, but I hope you get the point. Don’t take my word for it, research it yourself.

  • queue1114

    Bulldog, you really need to educate yourself on this matter. Seriously, take a look at these:



  • queue1114

    You’re right – to a point. Money is introduced into the system
    through a computer entry. However, what happens after that is what is important. That computer entry is sent to the local Federal Reserve Bank. Eventually, it reaches the Federal Reserve Bank in Washington, where funds are transferred from the Washington Fed to the local Fed, then to that local bank. Now, the local bank owes that money to the local Fed (plus interest), and the local Fed owes that to the Washington Fed (plus interest). In the meantime, the Washington Fed issues bonds, where necessary, to cover these transactions, if additional money needs to be printed. Those bonds are promises to pay, and go against the national debt.

    This is how the system works. Do some research. The majority of the population has no idea how this system works.

    Check out these:



  • queue1114

    You’re right – to a point. Money is introduced into the system
    through a computer entry. However, what happens after that is what is important. That computer entry is sent to the local Federal Reserve Bank. Eventually, it reaches the Federal Reserve Bank in Washington, where funds are transferred from the Washington Fed to the local Fed, then to that local bank. Now, the local bank owes that money to the local Fed (plus interest), and the local Fed owes that to the Washington Fed (plus interest). In the meantime, the Washington Fed issues bonds, where necessary, to cover these transactions, if additional money needs to be printed. Those bonds are promises to pay, and go against the national debt.

    This is how the system works. Do some research. The majority of the population has no idea how this system works.

    Check out these:



  • queue1114

    You’re right – to a point. Money is introduced into the system
    through a computer entry. However, what happens after that is what is important. That computer entry is sent to the local Federal Reserve Bank. Eventually, it reaches the Federal Reserve Bank in Washington, where funds are transferred from the Washington Fed to the local Fed, then to that local bank. Now, the local bank owes that money to the local Fed (plus interest), and the local Fed owes that to the Washington Fed (plus interest). In the meantime, the Washington Fed issues bonds, where necessary, to cover these transactions, if additional money needs to be printed. Those bonds are promises to pay, and go against the national debt.

    This is how the system works. Do some research. The majority of the population has no idea how this system works.

    Check out these:



  • queue1114

    Bulldog, Yes, it’s initiated by a computer entry. When someone receives a loan from a bank, the bank enters the amount into a computer. That amount is eventually transferred to the local Federal Reserve bank. This in turn is eventually sent to the Federal Reserve bank in Washington. Federal Reserve Notes are then issued (printed if necessary) and sent to the local Federal Reserve bank, and then eventually sent to the local bank where the loan originated. This money has been introduced into the economy at that point. The local bank then owes this money plus interest to the local Federal Reserve bank, which is part of the Federal Reserve system. In addition, this loan amount where money has been created to back it, is also added to the national debt. Hence what Edison was saying:

    our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element
    that makes the bond good, makes the bill good also. The difference between the
    bond and the bill is the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of
    the bond and an additional 20%, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who
    contribute directly in some useful way. It is absurd to say that our country
    can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are
    promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the

    I find that most people have absolutely no idea how this economic system works. Most are completely misled by our economic system.

    I encourage you to do some research on this. Check these out:




  • bulldog4857

    Firstly money isn’t printed to be introduced into the system. It’s all done by computer entry. Secondly when a commercial bank borrows the US gov’t is not involved in that transaction and owes nothing. I don’t know where you get this garbage but you just proved your point about not understanding how the system works. You don’t.

  • queue1114

    When you understand that as money is printed and introduced into the economy, the bank that receives it, now owes the Fed (with interest), AND the US Government also now owes the same amount (plus interest). So the pittance of the interest that is paid back to the US government is a drop in the bucket compared to what the international bankers get away with.

    As I said, the system is mathematically broken. Until we get the laws changed, the debt will never be paid off, it’s mathematically impossible.

  • queue1114

    Yes, $77 billion in a year, but every dollar that is printed is pure debt. It is debt owed by both the local banks, and the government. The international banking cartel makes double plus that pittance in interest as you pointed out.

  • SonoftheRepublic

    you have to be kidding – pay for things – laughable kool aide drinker

  • RickN

    When SS started it was meant to tax 90% of the nation’s earned income. Now it’s taxing in the low 80’s. The cap should be raised to capture the 90% the program had intended.

  • William_Larsen


    Negative cash flow is defined when current payroll taxes are insufficient to cover current expenses. The SSA website had tables identifying the Trust Fund Balance, Expenses and Revenues for each year since 1937.


    OASI Payroll tax by year
    2010 $544.773 Billion
    2011 $482.350 Billion
    2012 $503.893 Billion
    2013 $620.814 Billion
    2014 $646.232 Billion

    Total Expenses for OASI
    2010 $577.393 Billion
    2011 $596.155 Billion
    2012 $637.894 Billion
    2013 $672.129 Billion
    2014 $706.780 Billion

    The National Debt is about $19 Trillion. Of this national debt of $19 Trillion, $2.7 Trillion is owned by the SS-OASI trust fund in the form of Special Treasuries that are payable on demand. They are not marketable securities which may gain or loose value and are not allowed to be sold. Because they are payable on demand they are paid in full when submitted. Between 1971 and 1983 when the OASI program ran negative cash flows the US Treasury made good on the Special Treasuries by simply paying OASI the funds that were obtained when the Treasury swapped them for new debt to new investors. Since the debt was paid to SS-OASI, there was no increase or decrease in the national debt. The only thing that changes is who owns US Debt.

  • pennm51 .

    as to just when the bottom line of ss in total goes negative you obviously need to research this online(it is decades in the future)
    as well as the 2.7 trillion surplus that has been replaced by iou=s as it was spent off on other programs——-then you can argue these points in your own mind all you want since quite obviously you are like a dog with a bone on this subject who makes up his own facts to support his own ideas

  • William_Larsen


    I have no idea where you have been living, but I was told as far back as 1975 that SS-OASI could not pay scheduled benefits. In 1983 they were on the verge of being unable to pay benefits and the trust fund was exhausted. Congress stepped in, similar to this patch they recently did, which has caused this debate and kicked the can down the road. In 1983 the SS-OASI program was authorized to borrow $11 Billion from SS-DI and Medicare trust funds. This is similar to moving funds from SS-OASI to SS-DI to shore up its account balance. In addition in 1983, the base and payroll tax went up as well as subjecting SS benefits above an income threshold (has not changed since 1983) as well is increased the retirement age.

    No it is 2015 and 1983 was 32 years ago. Where have you been?

    Your statement “NOW TELLS US “WE CAN NOT AFFORD THESE ENTITLEMENTS.” I have received many SS-wage statements over the years. On page one on the lower right hand side, there is a paragraph stating that full benefits cannot be paid past a specified date.

    As for $2.7 Trillion in over paid taxes. This is not correct. The surplus taxes since 1937 total $417 Billion with the rest as credited interest.

  • pennm51 .


  • Bert

    Yeah, that argument works really well for an illiterate. Otherwise, not so much.

  • Bert

    Because I don’t insert politics or a political end game. The justices know that many things aren’t constitutional and allow them anyway because they fit their agenda. A few years back, their ruling on Affirmative Action stated that very clearly.

  • tedshepherd

    Calling the Supreme Court’s decisions wrong has no weight, no significance, no persuasive power. That is, unless you are somehow able to get Congress and state legislatures to pass constitutional amendment to undo those alleged mistakes. You give us no reason to think you understand the United States Constitution better than Supreme Court Justices do.

  • William_Larsen

    FDR’s Social Security
    January 17, 1935

    Three principles should be observed in legislation on this subject.

    First, the system adopted, except for the money necessary to initiate it, should be self-sustaining in
    the sense that funds for the payment of insurance benefits should not come from the proceeds of general taxation.

    Second, excepting in old-age insurance, actual management should be left to the States subject to standards established by the Federal Government.

    Third, sound financial management of the funds and the reserves, and protection of the credit structure of the Nation should be assured by retaining Federal control over all funds through trustees in the Treasury of the United States.


    The 1936 Government Pamphlet on Social Security
    ? 2% payroll tax in 1937 increasing to 6% in 1949.
    ? $25 weekly payroll would pay 50 cents a week for a benefit at age 65 of $53 a month.
    ? $50 weekly payroll would pay $1.00 a week for a benefit at age 65 of $74.50 a month.
    ? Death Benefit prior to age 65 was 3.5% of OASI wages.


  • William_Larsen


    If you make $5,000 a month and spend $4,000 of that on expenses and then charge another 1,500 that will not be due until 30 days after then end of the month, did you save any month this month?

    Cash flow accounting would say you saved $1,000. Accrual accounting says you went in the hole $500.

    Social Security is in negative cash flow now and is using the trust fund to fund up to 6% of benefits this year other wise benefits would have been cut by about 6% this year. No different than when an individual retires and begins consuming their life savings to live on.

    However, with SS it has a constant influx of new workers who will not collect form OASI for over 49 years. OASI gets to use this money to fund current beneficiary benefits and will not save any of it after 2010. Now each dollar of wages earned subjected to the SS-OASI payroll tax is credited to the workers wage history. This wage history is used to determine the initial SS-OASI benefit for the worker.

    There are several ways to look at the benefit; Some view it as a promise. Some view it as a generational contract. Some see it as an earned benefit. In Nestor v Flemming, the US Supreme court ruled that benefits are not guaranteed an that congress reserved the right to alter, change or repeal any porting of the Social Security Act without liability.

    I will simplify it to this. Let us assume the benefit is guaranteed. If so should not the liability accrued from each workers paycheck be counted as a liability and used to offset the current value of the SS-Trust fund to determine its financial worthiness or health of the program? If so the trust fund has $2.7 Trillion and accrued liabilities of over 37.5 Trillion.

    SS began in 1937 with no workers and no beneficiaries, a zero balance in the trust fund and no liabilities – its balance was absolutely $0.00 on January 1, 1937. Today under the same criteria SS’s health is a minus $35 Trillion. I would say SS is failed program.

  • pennm51 .

    bottom line—since its conception s.s. has taken more money in than it has payed out compared with most other government programs that is a very out of the ordinary success

  • SuperTech86

    There was no real surplus until 1983 it was pay as you go, no money….LOL

  • William_Larsen


    Attached is the SS-OASI tax for each year since 1937. This can be found on the SSA web site.


    As for the 1% every three years, you can read about this in the 1944 Testimony of A. J. Altmeyer.


    “The question which I understand the Committee wishes to discuss today is whether Congress should act to prevent the automatic increase in the present 1-percent-contribution rate payable by employers and employees respectively under the Federal old-age and survivors insurance system. As you know, if Congress does not act this rate will increase automatically to 2 percent each on January 1, 1945, in accordance with the schedule provided in the Social Security Act of 1935 and retained in the 1939 amendments to that Act. If Congress acts to retain the rate at 1 percent it will be the fourth time Congress has delayed the automatic increase provided in the law.”

    You can find the cohort period life tables at the SSA web site.



  • bulldog4857

    The SS Act called for 3% (each) by 1949, not 6%. The 6% rate didn’t happen until 1990. I doubt a 2% tax did much to extend the depression. Taxes weren’t collected until 1937 as you indicate. The SS life expectancy tables show increased life expectancy for those that age. That is, if you make it to 67 you have a better chance of making it to 68 than a 40 year old has of making it to 68. I never said anything about unfunded liabilities. You did. I’m talking about the $2.7T in bond debt held by SSA and needed to pay off the boomers. We can pay that. You haven’t got anything right yet.

  • William_Larsen


    “Simon Black doesn’t seem to realize that SS is in the black and is owed so much money that it will be in the black for many decades.”

    So you admit that in the future SS will be in the red. When it turns red, will those who had been paying for 40 years then face a cut? When it turns red, will those working see their taxes raised to pay for benefits to those who paid into SS for decades?

    The problem with SS is that benefits paid to the beneficiary have no bearing on the taxes paid by the individual to social security and that even worse, the individual cohort total payments have no correlation to the value of the payroll taxes paid by that cohort.

    SS has no mechanism that balances payments paid to SS with the benefits paid to the individual or cohort as a group. This creates a financial ambiguity as to what can safely be paid at any given time.

    You have workers who begin paying paying payroll taxes at age ~18, yet will not collect benefits until much later. Meanwhile, those payroll taxes paid by workers are being use to pay current beneficiaries. It would be like putting money into a bank account and then having that money taken immediately out by someone else and used as they see fit. When it comes time for you to collect, you may find there is not enough there or that politicians made changes.

    Bernie Maddoff was convicted of running a ponzi scheme. He did not invest funds, but simply paid current vestors off with new clients funds. It fell apart when the market went down (lower birth rates) and people began to take money out (retirement). SS-OASI is no different.

    The Good thing is congress reserved the right o change, alter or repeal any portion of the social security act without liability. Just as Prohibition was repealed (US Amendment) the social security act can be repealed as well and actually much easier. The key here are numbers. There are 119 million potential voters under 46 and only about 90 million potential voters over 46. Simply vote for politicians who support repealing SS. If they don’t vote them out. Pretty soon the gig will be up, do you want to be left holding an empty bag?

  • William_Larsen

    The delay in the rise from 2% to 6% by 1949 was thought to be a burden on the economy. There is a lot of evidence that Social Security extended the duration of the depression. By freezing the payroll tax at 2%, the social security program grew huge unfunded liabilities which to this day have not been paid for by any generation of worker.

    As for increase life expectancy, you can go to the SSA web site and look at cohort period life tables. Check it out yourself. increase life expectancy took the greatest leap forward between 1900 and 1940. Since then life expectancy increases is slowing, A baby born this year will live 18 days longer than a baby born last year at age 67.

    You say that the $35 Trillion unfunded liability can be repaid in 20 years? Since 1937 SS has only collected $14 Trillion in total tax revenues. Can you give me some idea as how this can be done?

  • bulldog4857

    Every single time I see a post like this it fails to mention that the interest charged by the Fed is repatriated by law to the US treasury. In 2013 for example the Fed wrote a check for some $77B to Uncle Sam. This is on net earnings of about $79B. It kept about $6B to run the system and paid a small amount in dividends, but that’s a pittance compared to what you think they are making. That the repatriation occurs is no secret and the Fed issues a press release every year stating how much they sent to the treasury.

  • bulldog4857

    No one stole anything. The SS Act of 1935 REQUIRES excess SS monies be invested in treasury obligations and they have always done so. This was to protect the value of the fund and make it grow. Every President, Secretary and Congress has been doing its job under the SS Act. Now that you know the truth you can quit spreading misinformation. The act is online if you want to look it up — and should.

  • bulldog4857

    SSDi will be shored up a few years, that’s the reason for doing it. OAS will suffer unless Congress acts to repay the loan somehow.

  • bulldog4857

    ALL of the info is wrong. Five minutes of web searching will conclusively show that. This propaganda has been debunked soo many times it’s insane. Quit posting lies.

  • bulldog4857

    It is urban legend that LBJ changed SS financing. He did no such thing. The 1969 “unified budget” was for budget presentation only. SS financing hasn’t been touched since 1935.

  • bulldog4857

    The rise to 3% was delayed to 1960 because of WWII. Congress raised income taxes to pay for the war and thought an additional burden on workers would have been too much. Another factor that caused SS to be stressed is the introduction of antibiotics and medical advances starting about the time SS was introduced. This greatly extended lifetimes. Congress has mismanaged SS from the beginning and not properly planned to repay the trust fund debt. It can be repaid over 20 years but it will stress the general fund to do so.

  • bulldog4857

    Jim you really need to learn to use a search engine. The tax holiday expired end of 2012. When tax revenues improved Congress made adjustment payments to the SS fund to repay the loan. Nothing was lost.

  • bulldog4857

    Every penny of the borrowing is represented in the 2.7T of bonds held by SSA. These are bona-fide debt of the US gov’t and must be repaid as needed to benefit the boomers as they draw down over the next 20+years. IN 2010/2011 some $80B each year was redeemed to pay benefits. Some has been paid back.

  • bulldog4857

    Oh but it does. The SS trust fund, like every other federal trust fund, is routinely loaned to the general fund at interest. Of the $2.7T value cited by the article, about $1T is in compound interest. That is debt that would not otherwise exist ( it might exist if Congress had borrowed from another source but that’s hypothetical).

  • bulldog4857

    SSA projects that even if timely repaid the trust fund runs dry in 2033. This is TWO decades, not many decades.

  • bulldog4857

    Not true. The original SS Act of 1935 REQUIRES excess SS funds be invested in treasury obligations, at interest, and it has always been done so. The intent was to make the trust fund grow in perpetuity so that eventually it would be so large as to be self-sustaining and the tax could be reduced or eliminated. For various reasons that didn’t happen. Because of the baby-boom, the trust fund has grown to $2.7T of which about $1T is compound interest. No particular president nor congress started raiding the fund — they have been doing what the law requires all along. One can question the wisdom of investing in the US gov’t but that’s what the 1935 congress passed into law.

  • myspiritrocks

    The only reason SS can be cited as a factor is because when it had a surplus the rotten politicians “borrowed” from it. SS should have never been touched. Its taken separately from every American’s paycheck for one reason and one reason alone. SS can not be blamed for contributing to the debt when it had the money and would now have a surplus if not for the crooks meddling with something that does not belong to them. They can’t raid the fund which must be paid back and then cry that its now causing a deficit.

  • Bert

    You don’t have to read a “dead person’s mind”, but you also can’t claim that leftist courts care about what the Constitution states. When you don’t use the constitution to make that decision, it’s not really constitutional is it. What did Obama call it, a “series of negative liberties” or some odd thing. It’s an obstruction to tyranny which is problematic.

  • Bert

    The rich invest in businesses when they can profit from them. “Playing the markets” is investing in businesses. They don’t have to start it themselves, they can fund business for someone else. That money is called “capital”, and is used to buy things.

    I think your view is merely a Marxist one and shows your lack of economic understanding and the envy of a Marxist.

    Our “best” business years were called the “postwar boom.”

    The “wealth gap” is largely due to socialism and the immediate gratification desires of the populace.

  • bronco1st

    Wrong again Bert. The “rich” don’t invest in businesses, they haven’t done so for decades. The entrepreneur builds a business or two (they don’t hang out and wait for the perfect moment, they create the moment) make a profit from the business and sell. Once they have sizable capital, say $20-40M, they begin playing the markets, letting their money do the work for them. They don’t create new businesses or jobs, they simply buy and sell electronic stocks (not even paper anymore), siphon off the profits through boom and bust profit taking, then stash those profits offshore or in hard assets like real estate, gold, rare antiques, annuities, bonds and art. Their money is safe in those slow growth holdings but do little or nothing in promoting economic growth. And of course the money stashed out of country, does zero, zip – NADA!

    I have no idea where you come up with the idea that the government today is “anti-business”. If you are talking about the obstructionism by the conservatives in congress over the past 7 year, then yes, they have hindered growth. However, our best growth years as a nation were when business taxes were much, much higher. Reagan’s trickle down supply side voodoo-comics had very little to do with the county’s emergence from stagflation. That was more a result of reducing Nixon’s price controls (especially on oil) and the baby boomers hitting their prime production years in the workforce. St Ronald had very little to do with it except to lessen the potential gains the government could have gotten in tax revenues which could have offset the increased national debt Reagan racked up. It’s a fact that while Obama has been in office, he has increased the national debt by 70%. However, Reagan increased the debt by 190% during his time in office – and much of that was due to his spending on Star Wars defense along with the reduction in tax revenues that the government could have had from the baby boomer economic growth.

    Your feudalistic economic path of unbridled capitalism leads to one end result, wealth inequality to such a degree that the top wealthiest 1% of the population owns 58% of the country’s assets and 98% of all new wealth created. Sorry, but that is unsustainable. Throughout history, the concentration of the majority of wealth into the hands of the smallest minority of elites, has led to violent overthrows and revolutions. Either lear to share what’s fair or lose it all.

  • Stevo One

    History doesn’t rally mattter here. The facts of the matter are that SCOTUS ruled it was constitutional and in 88 years no one has changed their minds. Then again, we now have a justice who can read dead people’s minds and one who is an unindicted perjurer, so you might still have a chance. Why don’t you run down to the SC and file a brief?

  • Dan Chaase

    Bert, SS has been around since 1937. It has passed thru the hands of lots of people in Congress and in the WH of both parties. All of them have a hand in this.

    I ran hospitals and nursing homes for 37 years; I also taught people to fly in little airplanes. I know this for a fact: If you get all excited and emotional over a problem or situation your brain shuts down, in the aviation world, I can guarantee you will die.

    The problem is that it has to be fixed starting now. They have to identify all the aspects of this including how the programs for the retirees now can be maintained with less workers coming along, unless we import more people called immigrants.

    Medicare is not upside down at the $60 trillion mark. The 2015 report of the Medicare/SS Trustees shows that Part B (physician visits, outpatient testing) is funded OK into the future. Part A (hospitalization) will hit bottom in 2030.

    That 2030 used to be 2025. In the ACA there is a section that requires regional task forces of physicians whose job it is to create “best practices” for the diagnosis and treatment of the most common diseases first going to the least common.

    This program has been in effect since 2010. These protocols are not “rules.”
    Hospitals put these into effect for all patients, not just commercial insurance subscribers and have saved the Medicare program billions which pushed
    the bottom down the road five years and rising.

    These protocols stress using the next most conservative tests or treatments before jumping first to the high priced ones. You see the sky is not really falling.

  • Brusque

    I frequently find it funny how unintelligent these wealthy people are and the fact that they don’t even realize it. In their world, if you’ve made a lot of money, then you know more about everything else then anybody else. Simon Black doesn’t seem to realize that SS is in the black and is owed so much money that it will be in the black for many decades. Raised in the talk radio/fox news bubble, he thinks he can use their talking points and no one will notice that. I’ve have seen many “conservatives” make far better cases against SS then this. This is barely a high school level paper and Simon Black having a lot of money doesn’t make it any better. In fact, it makes it much worse. Apparently, making money in a system setup for the wealthy isn’t that difficult and maybe he ought to consider that he isn’t really that smart. If you have to use fox talking points, it is a good indication that you can’t think for yourself. He watched fox, and naturally having never thought about it himself, believed everything he heard. He didn’t think about it because his survival doesn’t depend on it as it does for so many. In his world, all they need to do is start saving more and move to a cheaper country to retire. Unfortunately, we live in his world where income for middle and lower class people has been falling due to the efforts of people like himself. In the article, he could barely contain his glee that Republicans will hopefully get their way and older folks can start dying of starvation when they can’t work anymore. Obviously, he didn’t mention the last part as he obviously doesn’t care about anyone but himself. He wants to protect his money. He doesn’t want inflation caused by our debt to affect him. Of course, if we hadn’t been cutting taxes in the middle of a war, this wouldn’t have happened. Tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited him and the rest of the 1%. It is his party that did that with the express purpose of making the social safety net untenable (Starve the beast). Wealthy, selfish, hypocrite who’s been given everything trying to tell the rest of us to cut back and do without so his money will maintain it’s value!

  • Grandma 1

    I agree and disagree with you. I agree some people do not know how to save. I totally disagree because I have saved and saved and worked all my life. I fell on hard times and used much of my saved money, which was not too shabby, up on paying for health insurance as I became unemployed and so did my husband. Cobra insurance is no joke. It is very expensive, especially when you have a decent work policy and then have to change over to pay yourself, your regular bills do not go away and when other emergencies fall into place, you see your bank account just dwindle away. My not to shabby account has become almost shitty but we still keep plugging along. We live on SSI, and only one of us because the other is too young and is waiting for disability to be accepted and it is very hard. We take home in one month just as much as we took home in one week. That is difficult. So yes, some people do not know how to bank and save but there are many who just fall onto bad breaks in older life. Wish it could be different, but not so. If the government left their paws out of borrowing from what people worked very hard for, maybe then SS could pay out higher benefits.

  • Bert

    LOL, like the SCOTUS gets it right. There are those who follow the Constitution on the Court and those who put politics first…they tend to universally be on the left.

  • Bert

    You know very little about history, and less about the Constitution. Pretty much nothing FDR did was Constitutional, but he had Democrats willing to violate it and the stacked court to allow it.

  • Stevo One

    Tell you what. The SCOTUS ruled in 1937 that Social Security is constitutional. Why don’t you argue with them?

  • Stevo One

    Right. The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you. Best of luck. Hope you join us poor folk living on Planet Earth.


    So, Venezuela, Cuba, China, North Korea, Russia…are Fascist?

  • Harry

    Borrow, my ass! Those other programs STEAL from the SS funds! Not a freaking penny is paid back.

  • Marcus Antonius

    Refute it !

  • AmericanInfidelUnbeliever


  • RickN

    You’re an idiot.

  • Jim Morris

    it hasn’t been canceled, and it’s been 4 years! 2% of a 6 % program is huge! you must be nuts not to see the effect this has on revenue.

  • RickN

    It’s pretty obvious you copy/pasted from some right wing nut job web site. Much of your info is wrong. It’s also obvious that you swallowed it all without doing your own fact checking. Now, check each of your statements against the truth. I hope you’re embarrassed for spreading lies.


  • gary

    SS is the biggest PONZI scheme ever

  • gary


  • RickN

    It was during the Johnson administration that the SS funds were combined with general revenues. It was to help pay for the VietNam war. You see, Democrats actually try to pay for things. Conservatives don’t want to pay for anything and then put their wars on credit cards and off of the ‘books’.

  • RickN

    Half of the people in the country don’t know how to spell s-a-v-e. They’re not intelligent enough to understand the concept of needing to save for the future. No legislation will make people smarter. Welcome to America, the land of the stupid.

  • RickN

    It was a 2 year tax reduction in order to stimulate the economy. You sound like the typical right winger who lies with a straight face, as if this temporary tax reduction was permanent. And the repubs were happy to do it and then yelled at Obama when the tax went back to its original amount saying he was raising taxes.

  • gary

    quit yelling

  • gary

    so how could a right-winger who asks for less government and less interference by the government in their lives be called a fascist?

  • Bert

    Okay, outside of the past 3 times it was tried, it never happened. Gotcha.

    You see, you aren’t looking at the big picture. Somehow you expect the “rich” to act differently than you, but they really don’t. They respond to the same inputs you do. When you want a big screen TV and Best Buy puts the model you want on sale for say $50-100 off, you are motivated to to to the store to buy one in order to save the money.

    Now, turn it around. Say you have $1million you wish to invest. You have an idea but you have played with the numbers and the risk factor is just high enough, and the margins are just low enough to make the idea not in your comfort zone. Then there is a tax cut and the numbers work out, so you make the investment, hire people, spend money, and grow the economy. However, for this to work, you have to have a government that is not anti-business like we have today. Otherwise all the tax cuts in the world are pretty much useless. This is why it worked for Bush, Reagan, and Kennedy.

    It’s all about math and how people feel about risk. You know, the thing that Marx never considered in your chosen economic path.

  • DH

    This article LIES when it says that the us government has gone into debt to fund SS. SS has a trillion dollar surplus and has never added a single penny to the debt. Much the opposite, other government programs are in debt to it, as they borrow from it instead of finding their own funding.

  • bronco1st

    You really are misinformed by your Fox educational system. Tax cuts have affected GDP very little over history. Innovation and technological advances have been the key motivators to the US economy in the modern era. Your right wing conservative gibberish of “Give tax breaks to the wealthy and it will increase growth with the benefits trickling down and the taxes collected on the increased economic growth will pay for the tax cuts” is pure nonsense, it didn’t happen, doesn’t happen, won’t happen and that’s been proven, a fact and not debatable. Your post is totally W.R.O.N.G (Wing-nut Republican Opinionated Nonsensical Garbage).

  • John Sadders

    Soc.Sec is the greatest boon to America that has ever arisen….It assures a steady low income for workers and their families…..It protect families from vast human weaknesses that plague us….Drunks, druggies, gamblers, bad investors….No matter how sorry you are; you and your spouse have a steady revenue source….The truth is the average middle-class and poorer American is unable to save for the future……40% of retirees have almost nothing saved…..If there were no Soc.Sec. those same people would still have nothing saved……The result would be the government handing out to them all some new welfare package that cost even more than they would have received from Soc.Sec….

  • Bert

    John, you should really learn how SS works. If you knew the details, you wouldn’t be a big supporter. It takes from the middle class, not the “rich”, even though the rich subsidize the whole thing.

  • Bert

    Your SS statement is based on the fallacy of the Trust Fund which means that it’s not fact based, but based on gimmick. We should have focused on fixing this 40 years ago. The problem is now and it’s going to grow rapidly. Many are going to get beaned, but the goal is to keep them from getting mad at the Democrats who have denied any problems. Even you don’t seem too uptight about it, but then again, I don’t think you really understand it. What’s going to happen is that taxes will go up, many middle income and “rich” people will have reduced or eliminated benefits, and it will truly become an intergenerational welfare program that hurts the middle class.

    The Post Office is being killed by the end of mail. Like most people, I pay nearly every bill online and go paperless. There are inefficiencies so ingrained in the USPS that it will take a miracle to correct them, although they are working at it. Yes, all government employees should be phased into a defined contribution plan.

    Nice to save billions, takes a dent out of the $60 trillion Medicare is upside down, let alone the hole Obamacare dug.

  • Bert

    I don’t think it is, I know it is. Find me where the government is authorized to do it. Article 1, Section 8 or the amendments. Let me know what you find.

  • Stevo One

    Well, Bert, for a guy who believes SS is unconstitutional, I doubt whatever I say or whatever the facts are really matters.

  • bronco1st

    Your sisters must be getting checks from their spouse’s account. In order to qualify for SS benefits, you MUST have worked and paid into the system. This is from the SS website;

    “To qualify for Social Security retirement benefits, a worker must accumulate 40 quarters of coverage (QCs). A QC is credited for a given dollar amount of earnings in covered occupations, rather than for a number of months worked. Nevertheless, accumulating 40 QCs requires at least 10 years because no more than 4 QCs can be credited in any year. The number of QCs required for disability benefits is prorated according to age at disability onset.6 Almost all (94.5 percent) of the never-beneficiaries aged 62–84 in 2010, for one reason or another, have not satisfied these requirements and thus do not receive benefits in 2010 (Chart 2).7 The remaining proportion of aged never-beneficiaries comprises individuals who are projected to be eligible for Social Security benefits, but die before receiving them.8”

    So, you have either been deceived by your sisters or are lying or are too lazy to look up the facts for yourself… maybe all 3. As for the prisoners, the same applies, they must have worked and contributed for at least 40 quarters (10 years). If they have done that and met other qualifications like age and being a US citizen, then yes they can get SS while serving time in prison.

  • Dan Chaase

    Let’s see, Bert. I said the liability was $40T and the CURRENT worry is at least 10 years out. That is not much different from what you said. I guess my car loan analogy was not as clear as I thought. However, the point is that the value of a dollar and what it can buy goes down over the years.

    The same problem is what is killing the post office as back in 1970, they should have changed the pension program from a defined benefit to a defined contribution. But that is what happens when politicians try to do business.

    On Medicare. The ACA has way down in those 2500 pages the requirement for the creation of regional physician task forces. These task forces were charged with creating “best practice protocols” (not rules) for the most common diseases working up to the least common.

    Hospitals cannot differentiate on patient care issues based on a person’s source of payment. In some cases it is illegal in others it is just too confusing to add that layer.
    As a result they used the same protocols on all patients not just those on commercial insurance plans. In the first five years, these protocols have saved Medicare BILLIONS
    of dollars and has pushed their D-Day down the road more than 5 years and climbing.

    The idea of the protocols is to guide physicians to using the next most conservative diagnostic test or treatment program rather than jump right to a CT or MRI for thousands of dollars to an ordinary Xray. You see there is much more in the ACA to benefit us than meets the eye. There are grants to medical schools and PA and NP programs to increase their enrollments–these started in 2010 and was the reason everything was delayed 4 years to actually start to increase the number of practitioners to treat all the new patients coming aboard.

  • Larry Nicoletti

    S$%^$BAG GOP-CON-AZZZ at their BS Lie’s and Threats Again

  • Jim Morris

    And Obama made it happen even sooner by cutting Social Security contributions by employees and employers immediately upon taking office.

  • bobbymac1947

    I see the trolls are out in force again.

  • bobbymac1947

    Congress want to lose your cushy benefit rich jobs?….Then keep your grubby mitts of social security, or go and find a real job . Choice is yours.

  • queue1114

    The treasury secretary of the US, has the ability to pay off the debt, by simply minting a few coins that have a declared value of $1 Trillion each. As the debt is paid off, simultaneously, the fractional reserve ratio on the banking system must be raised to 100%. This will keep any resulting inflation at or near 0%. Once done, the Secretary of the treasury, must close the Federal Reserve Bank Inc. and open a United States Government Central Bank, owned by “We the People”. At this point, the US Government Central Bank can begin issuing US Dollar Bills, (NOT Bonds), and issue all currency free of debt.

    At this point, the government can fund anything debt free, as they will no longer be tied to the international banking cartel.

    As the government funds its programs, the money flows naturally into the economy. To offset inflation, (in the event too much money is flowed into the economy) the government uses its power of taxation to remove the excess money from the economy.

    In this way, we will have a stable economy, where there is the right amount of currency in circulation to allow commerce to flow smoothly.

    Even though there are SOME economists that would try and say otherwise, this is NOT rocket science.

    “If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way. It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people.”
    Thomas Edison, Inventor, 1919

  • Jen623


  • John Sadders

    “making others poor”…..A small percent more from the rich will not have them dressing in rags…….

  • William_Larsen


    far more than it has paid out? Our you sure of this? Let us take a look at the SSA website.


    Total taxes paid into OASI since 1937 $13.424763 Trillion

    Total expenditures since 1937 $13.007518 Trillion

    Surplus taxes since 1937 $413 Billion.

    Interest paid on the the loaned surplus is $1.74 Trillion.

    Putting that into perspective the trust fund of $2.729 Trillion is the sum total available to pay 44 million beneficiaries and 160 million workers their accrued benefits under current law. This would be $62,000 per beneficiary or $17,057 per worker. Is Social Security well funded and working well?

  • Bert

    No, it isn’t a savings plan since you have no claim to what was taken.

    No, it no SS doesn’t mean more welfare programs. When you stop taking money from the workers and let them have their own accounts, they live better. The transition will be hard for the millennials who get burned, but it all levels out and everybody is better off except the government which loses control over the people. This is a huge detriment to the Democrats.

    You don’t help the poor by making others poor. This is the goal of liberalism.

  • dentss

    I will gladly give up my monthly check as long as the government gives me back all the money I and my employer put into it .

  • Grandma 1

    The government should stop deducting the money from workers and make people responsible to have their own accounts for retirement. Make a law effective as of the day it is passed that if you do not insure your own retirement account as of the particular date, there will be no subsidies for you when you retire. For everyone who paid into SS you should get credited and get your due monies for putting into the funds. It will lower the national debt and get the government out of the situation they caused. The govt cannot put money back into the SS fund because the fund has to be matched dollar for dollar. This has been known from the beginning of the program but to date no one has put this out there nor changed the law. The people behind SS are smart and they think we are all stupid. DO NOT HAVE PR DEDUCTIONS AND THIS WILL STOP THEM FROM RAPING THE SYSTEM EVEN MORE. Always remember, Congress and the govt workers will always get their monies first. They are the last to go on any “freebies”. SS is not a freebie for we have all worked for it and have all gotten it shoved up our butts.

  • John Sadders

    Bert…Soc.Sec. is not a savings plan…And it was not designed to be fair….It was “ONLY” started to help the poor……It is basically a mostly self-financed welfare program for seniors…..You receive enough money to be near the top of the poor list..( If that is all the income you receive )…….If not for Soc.Sec. the government would be on the hook to pay for some new welfare program that is 100% paid by the taxpayers…So Soc.Sec. actually saves the nation simply by existing…..Who should we tax more to help the poor; the rest of the poor?…..Maybe when you die we can shovel your money into your coffin with you….That way no one will get any and you can die happy……..

  • Gene Everhart

    Government wants everyone to forget that they borrowed from SS and never paid it back. Just like the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund. The Teamsters borrowed from it, and never paid it back.So now they tell me my pension is to be cut next year. General Motors did the same with their workers pension fund. All of it money people have earned one way or another. It’s called legalized rape

  • Da Wa

    So are we all going to sit around and gripe about it like bunch of babies or do something? It’s way past time we got off our duffs and become involved in the political movement in this country.

  • William_Larsen


    SS-OASI ran negative cash flows from 1971-1983. To pay benefits the Treasury paid back every penny ever borrowed plus interest. You can find this data at the SSA web site.


    The problem is that the initial OASI tax of 2% was inadequate to pay benefits. Read A. J. Altmeyer Testiomy before congress in 1944.


    SS paid meaningful benefits early on to gain support for Social Security, but did not collect meaningful payroll taxes. This is the sole reason SS has a problem.

  • William_Larsen


    I replied to a writer who said Social Security had achieved its goal. I just wanted to know how that goal was met. Clearly there is a cost to achieving a goal. What has been the cost and has it been worth it?

    I understand that nearly every country in the world has some form of SS. Greece does and they have a huge problem. France has a huge problem as does Germany; both of these countries have reduced benefits because their programs are unsustainable. Britain took the big step to curb their SS program decades ago and is better off, but still going over a cliff. China has finally realized their SS program is a disaster and has changed its one child rule to boost the number of workers.

    This is the key problem with a SS program. Instead of based on what is paid in, it is based solely on the number of workers. One idea was if you had no children, you get no SS because you did not invest in the entity that would one day be needed to pay your SS benefit.

    When you look at the number of millionaires in the US, they number of 9 million now. The majority are over 65. The number of seniors over 65 is roughly 43 million. Before the last economic recession, 1 in 6 seniors had $1million+ in assets. So clearly SS is not designed to help the poor or those who cannot save.

    Prior to SS people saved, it may not been enough, but over time American Workers had improved their lot in life and saved. It may have taken another 50 years to reach a time when the majority of workers were self-sufficient in retirement, but it would have been achieved. Now we have a SS program that
    cannot pay scheduled benefits. We have a National Debt of over $19 trillion. We
    have programs to help people save, but it takes disposable income to save. So
    who takes advantage of these saving programs – those who have disposable incomes?

    Why do we disenfranchise the worker from saving by taking the first 10.6%
    of wages? Why not have a safety net that helps those who fall through? Why reduce all workers to the lowest common denominator?

  • Marcus Antonius

    The Right
    Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Jay, Henry, Hale,
    Hancock, Washington, The Continental Army, and many many more. The
    Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers.
    The Left
    Lenin, Trotsky, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Idi
    Amin, Ho Chi Min, Peron. Chavez, The Kims of North Korea, The DNC,
    Congressional Black Caucus, W. Clinton, H. Clinton, B. Obama and many more.

    Sic Semper Tyrannis !

  • Marcus Antonius

    Contemplate this Quote:
    In certain basic respects – a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom – fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between.
    Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Associate Professor of History at Harvard
    Fascism – from the term Fascio, meaning a bundle of sticks – is a vestige of Collectivism and of the Left.

  • jim

    I noticed the writer left out important information
    FACT the Social Security was on very solid ground bringing in more money than it had to put out – SO the the government ruined that
    the government borrowed large amounts of money from Social Security saying they would pay it back – they never did
    and the government waited until Social Security was in trouble before giving them any money
    then to make Social Security even worst they change the rules about who could get Social Security
    adding many people that never gave a dime to the system
    if the government had paid back the money would Social Security be in trouble now? no one can really say
    but it would be in a much better position than it is now
    in short Social Security worked and was doing great
    our government destroyed Social Security and keep trying to pass the blame while at the same time trying to end Social Security
    one thing they never talk about – what happens to all of us that paid into in ?????????

  • Marcus Antonius

    He should be dug up and a bullet put into the back of his head. Say .45 230 gr. @ 850′ per sec!

  • Marcus Antonius

    Get a new Dictionary as it is incorrect and is a political statement.
    We have gone
    a nation with more wealth than could be counted, to more debt than can be
    counted, and since 1971 this wealth has been spent to foster a
    government of
    crooks, thieves and murderers and who now have successfully Bankrupted the
    country and inserted a Fascist/Marxist Police State on it’s people. I
    have a
    description for these people. “The Elite Ruling Criminal Class” They have
    stopped any pretense of obeying Our Constitution and are blatantly
    We the People without remorse or accountability. The loss of purchasing
    power, just since 1972 has been more than 70% and since 2001 over 20% of
    what remains. Such a bang up job these two Elite Ruling Criminal Class
    political parties have done for us. Aren’t you just all fuzzy and tingly
    with praise?

    Now you may say what you like about the right or the left and it is wrong.
    The only right in this nation is what has been written and modified legally
    by the People or their representatives, known as The Constitution of The
    United States of America, written and ratified in 1787 after our Revolution
    and Cornwallis’s surrender near me at Yorktown in 1781.

    The only right are the framers of Our Constitution and all else is left,

    The Republicans and the Democrats are leftists. Sorry to bust your bubble.
    And avaricious and acquisitive and corrupt, to boot.

    The government has become no longer, By the People, For the People and Of
    the People, but a ravenous tentacled monster, destroying our freedoms and
    our liberties and 236 years of our efforts since July 4, 1776. In other
    words it has become the enemy of all freedom loving individuals.

    So don’t buy the lies about right and left, as they are not correct at all.
    The document and those who defend it are right. Remember, all else is left.

    It starts like this. WE THE PEOPLE of the United States. in Order to form a
    more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide
    for the common defense, promote the general Welfare. and secure the
    Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
    this Constitution for the United States of America.
    Stand up and defend it or accept the slavery that is rapidly being deployed
    on this nation.

    Publius Marcus Antonius
    Yes it is my Nom De Plume


    noun: fascism
    an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    synonyms:authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism; More
    nationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, chauvinism, jingoism, isolationism;
    neo-fascism, neo-Nazism;
    corporativism, corporatism;
    historicalFrancoism, Falangism
    antonyms:democracy, liberalism
    (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.”this is yet another example of health fascism in action”
    from Italian fascismo, from fascio ‘bundle, political group’, from Latin fascis (see fasces).
    Translate fascism toChoose languageAfrikaansAlbanianArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBengaliBosnianBulgarianBurmeseCatalanCebuanoChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CroatianCzechDanishDutchEsperantoEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGujaratiHaitianHausaHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKoreanLaoLatinLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMongolianNepaliNorwegianNyanjaPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiRomanianRussianSerbianSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSpanishSundaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTeluguThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduUzbekVietnameseWelshYiddishYorubaZulu


    You better read about Nazi Germany! Dummy!


    Hope you die being treated under ACA treatment!

  • SonoftheRepublic

    li-b-t-a-r-d-s looted the system after Reagan passed legislation to begin preparing for the baby boomers retirement – the increased in those taxes are what they are now about 13% give or take.

  • Roman Law

    “…Fascism is a leftist political system !” Merriam Webster Dictionary definition #1: “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”

    Definition#2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge”

    Fascism Does Not exist in American government. We are a Corporatocracy! Clearly, YOU have problem using a dictionary.

  • bogie007

    yea but killarys old bill took billions out of SS to balance his books ,,rather have a repug than a old hag that lies ,bill had to get women to do KILLAYS JOB ,, huff ,and puff,and blow.

  • Da Wa

    Only the working blue collar middle class and lower middle class will be $2rew3d by the upper middle class as they continue to rape social security for the own nefarious purposes. Social security was never meant to fund other government programs and would be just fine if Paul Ryan would keep his fingers out of it. It was never meant to prop up people from other countries who never paid a dime into it. They ride the coattails of their children into this country and collect collect collect. Social Security s not a government handout. You paid for it your entire lives. It is your money, not Paul Ryan’s money. This is all brainwashing to make us think we don’t deserve something we paid for. All politicians hold be scared right now that they don’t meet us on the streets.

  • Pat Sprinkle

    I have 2 sisters that receive Social Security checks every month, and neither one of them have ever worked a day in the lives. They are both single, and have been divorced for over 30 years.
    FYI: Prisoners get Social Security checks as well, even if they have never worked in their lives. EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

  • Marcus Antonius

    But Fascism is a leftist political system ! Most Repubs are right of Fascists, who reside in the Democrat party. I am not a Republican, but do feel that ignorance should be exposed and you are exposed !

  • pennm51 .

    what total garbage———social security in total has taken in far more money than it has ever PAYED out——-at latest count it has a 2.7 trillion dollar surplus——of course congress has spent out that 2 .7 trillion elsewhere and because of this it is a social program that has a 2.7 trillion dollar drag on our finances?———PURE-unadulterated-BULL——-IT !

  • Hey you

    Here is factual information about the raping of the SS system and whom has done it;
    Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social

    Security (FICA) Program. He promised:


    1.) That participation in the Program would be

    Completely voluntary,

    No longer Voluntary


    2.) That the participants would only have to pay

    1% of the first $1,400 of their annual

    Incomes into the Program,

    Now 7.65%

    on the first $90,000


    3.) That the money the participants elected to put

    into the Program would be deductible from

    their income for tax purposes each year,

    No longer tax deductible


    4.) That the money the participants put into the

    independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the

    general operating fund, and therefore, would

    only be used to fund the Social Security

    Retirement Program, and no other

    Government program, and,

    Under Johnson the money was moved to

    The General Fund and Spent


    5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never

    be taxed as income.


    Under Clinton & Gore

    Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed


    Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are

    now receiving a Social Security check every month —

    and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of

    the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put

    away’ — you may be interested in the following:


    ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —-


    Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the

    independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the

    general fund so that Congress could spend it?

    A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically

    controlled House and Senate.


    ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —


    Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax

    deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

    A: The Democratic Party.


    ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —–


    Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social

    Security annuities?

    A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the

    ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the

    Senate, while he was Vice President of the US


    ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— –


    Q: Which Political Party decided to start

    giving annuity payments to immigrants?



    A: That’s right!

    Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.

    Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,

    began to receive Social Security payments! The

    Democratic Party gave these payments to them,

    even though they never paid a dime into it!


    ———— — ———— ——— —– ———— ——— ———


    Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),

    the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans

    want to take your Social Security away!

  • Marcus Antonius

    Somebody should assassinate Franklin Delano Roosevelt !

  • 848484


    about Islam, to Safeguard Your Families against Common-Core Islamization

  • mucklucky

    Then they will borrow and spend that money.

  • mucklucky

    Congress stole $150 Billion from the SS retirement account to give to the SS disability fund. Now they both will be out of money in less time than previously expected.

  • Treehugger

    How about writing the article to match the Title? Maybe I am blind or can’t read very well anymore since I am old but I see no where in this article about the current congress and their proposal?

  • Mike Dills

    if the government would quit stealing from social security now in the range over 3 trillion dollars that wasn’t theirs to take and they have no way of paying it back . that is why they want to do away with it because they have no way of paying back what they have stolen. My opinion every government official who had anything to do with taking this money be jailed until all funds are returned and forfeit their wealth at the same time to pay back social security.

  • rocky172534

    nothing they are to busy throwing stones to actually build anything

  • rocky172534

    we would have money for infrastructure ,education etc..just look at the stupid waste of money on these new jets ,half a trillion right there. what pisses me off is that they spend whatever they want
    for whatever they want.they ask for money and the government gives it to them.we (symbolically)
    are spat upon by the oligarchy.

  • rocky172534

    thank you john i’m sick of it too

  • Dan

    “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” – Milton Friedman

  • VetTeacher

    Republifascists have always hated things that help the “average’ person sleep better at night and live longer. So this regrettable piece of Yellow right wing Journalism was a waste of electrons.

  • Bert

    Yes, taxes can be raised, but if you raise them too much, you end up increasing government spending again due to the money inserted into the system and baseline budgeting.

  • Bert

    Your problem is that I’m not young, and you are not right.

  • Bert

    Clinton…redlining…CRA modifications…Frank…Dodd.

  • Bert

    The court was wrong, SS was never constitutional. They are very often wrong.

  • Bert

    You honestly have no clue here. None of this happened.

  • Bert

    You should learn the story of this rather than try to tap Bush. But the truth will be hard for you to accept since the blame falls on the Democrats far more then the Republicans

  • Bert

    Sorry, but this is not true at all, it’s leftist propaganda that those who don’t know will buy and accept without checking the facts. Your post is highly lacking in truth, but long on partisan BS.

    The tax cuts increased revenues. Tax revenues pay for things, tax rates do not. The best way to increase revenues is to grow the economy, but that means profits so the Democrats are not in favor of that.

    Part D is the only thing you are right on, but it’s contribution to the national debt is minuscule. The wars that the Democrats voted to prosecute were paid for. I’m not sure where “unfunded” comes from, unless you are dumb enough to think that tax rates pay for things.

    The money in the SS “trust” fund is the collective surplus of the program, mostly since Reagan. It is not an investment vehicle, nor are they conventional T-bonds. They are “special low interest, non-marketable” bonds held by the SSA. You have absolutely no clue here. The money has been handled the same way since FDR.

    Do you realize that we have spent $24 trillion on “war on poverty” since LBJ and really haven’t moved the needle on poverty? How about the $24 trillion spent on FDR’s Cold War which it looks like Obama is restarting? Or our bloated military budget due to FDR committing US taxpayer dollars for the bulk of global defense?

  • Bert

    See above

  • Bert

    What a nice solution, pass the buck onto someone else. How liberal of you.

    SS monies are not “diverted”, the cumulative surpluses are represented by the trust fun balance. It it legitimately failing.

    You mention the income cap being lifted as a “good” solution. However, if you look at how SS is structured, you will see that it is a very unfair solution, not that a lefty would really care about fairness or morality, but I’ll just toss it out there. You may not realize it, but there are payout caps designed to match the income caps. Funny how that works. Are you willing to lift the payout caps to match the income cap? Probably not.
    Do you realize that there are 3 levels of credit for your “contribution” based on income levels. For every dollar under $15,000, you get 93% credit from SS. Between $15,000 and $60,000 you get 35% credit, and between $60,000 and the cap, you get 15% credit. The middle income and “rich” are the people who get screwed.

    The whole idea of SS was to buy votes and normalize government dependency…for Democrat benefit.

  • Cjoe

    I believe the main take-away for this is that the government can not be trusted with our money. If they can get their hands on it, they will spend it.

  • Bert

    SS is the perfect example of a Ponzi. Such a program would be illegal in the private sector because they eventually fail. The boomers who artificially extended the “success” of SS will be the ones who destroy it when they wish their money when their time comes. It’s the combined falling revenues and increasing demands that destroy ponzi schemes.

    Sorry, the “dumbing down” of the education system started before then, it’s been going on for over 50 years, long before Reagan. The poor aren’t demonized, but the leftists who desire for them to be poor and who trap them in permanent poverty are. The police are “militarized” to engage the problems brought on by LBJ’s “war on poverty.”

    Sorry, you lost on this one.

  • dnokc

    Hilarious Super Tech 86! Try none other than LBJ in 1965!

  • Roy Johnson

    Sorry disagree the was started as individual working american retirement funds with funds subtracted from pay . So when then Democrats need funds to fund all these great programs and the Supposed Tea baggers refused to allow democratic government social reformers to raise taxes they at first started out by saying borrowing but then went in and continuously dipped in and used . Alright just stop no more social programs welfare/ medical or other social programs cut there benefits not the workers that earned it

  • ageless

    seguridad Social

  • ageless

    Not trying to start a fight with you. Just want to remind you of all the hollow point shells that were bought.

  • SuperTech86

    And you might want to read the economic report from

    Laurence Kotlikoff on the unfunded liabilities and how they increased from $70 trillion when GWB first entered office to almost $180 trillion by the end of his second term.,

  • Sherman Dickson



  • SuperTech86

    Wrong the changes were made under the Reagan administration as is seen the the social security amendments of 1983.

  • Sherman Dickson


  • SuperTech86

    #1 – the left did not lie and social security is not inherently a “ponzi scheme” but the large demographic shift in the U.S from the baby boomers is going to run into funding problems due to decling tax revenues.

    #2 – the left did not dumb down the U.S education system that started in the 80’s with neo-liberalism under the Reagan administration and has has only grown to encompass all facets of society in the U.S along with the demonization of the poor and the militarization of the police force, exactly as was done in Latin America.

    Your the one that needs to “educate” oneself Bert…

  • SuperTech86

    Definitely not keep lowering tax revenues with the large aging population in the U.S at almost a full 1/3 of the total. The unfunded liabilities increased from $70 trillion when GWB first took office to almost $180 trillion just as George Akerlof and 10 other Nobel prize winning economists had warned.

  • SuperTech86

    Wrong. Social Security used to be pay as you go and Reagan made changes which can be found in the social security amendments of 1983. GHWB was the first to borrow the surplus to fund other government programs, etc.

  • Roy Johnson

    What I get a kick out of is this was started as individual retirement accounts when did it change from purpose intended , When and who first borrowed from it if memory serves right these social democrats they took funds out of it to start their social liberal government welfare and government sponsored equal rights programs . Another words stole the money working tax payers put in to pay for the bums

  • BuzzB

    Thank you John for dispelling some of the false shock that this article represents. Several studies done by actual mathematicians have proved that removing the wage cap alone can make Social Security and Disability, both earned benefits and not entitlements as they are regularly referred to, solvent well into the future, and not just for baby boomers, but for those under 40 who they are trying to scare the most. Gone are the days of pensions except for government workers and highly rewarded corporate executives. There still exists government employee pension programs that require a worker to only put in 20 years of work before being able to receive 70-80% of past wages in retirement for life, all paid for by the tax payers. All of this time the governments are hiring new employees while they are paying 40 something retirees for their 20 years of service. Instead of paying almost two complete salaries to their workers, one who is working and the other who is not, they should up the requirement for time served from 20 to 40 years. This occurs not only on the federal stage, by counties and city governments. These retired employees can also procure another job with these governments and still receive taxpayer funded pensions along with their new positions. That’s getting paid for two jobs, but only having to work one and is hardly fair especially when you consider the federal government trying to wiggle out of this great social program created by FDR. The normal wage earner has to put in 40-50 years of work prior to retirement and that’s with no pension. These social programs are now, and will be the basis for many persons’ retirements although effecting some savings will of course help supplement the “Golden Years” for the majority of U.S. citizens.

  • SDSUProf

    You do understand that it is the Republican party that wants to end SS and medicare, don’t you?

  • John Sadders

    How stupid is this article?….You figure Soc.Sec. costs for the next 100 years and say we are $40 Trillion short?…Yet you do not mention or count the next 100 years of workers paying INTO the fund….Or the end of the high birth rate ( in a short time period ) in the future….Let’s figure how much the U.S Government needs for the next hundred years….And then say the government liabilities will exceed $1900 trillion dollars……..That is exactly what you are saying about Soc.Sec….Spreading lies to try to shock and panic citizens…..Soc.Sec will easily be funded in full by a few simple methods…..Removing the tax cap and a minor increase on payroll tax will cover it……I get sick of hearing these trash article…Articles that are designed to get taxpayers to accept hardship cuts to benefits by politicians so they may use our tax money and our benefits to fund themselves and their projects, and to buy votes……

  • tedshepherd

    You are exactly correct. The only social security benefits anyone is entitled to now is what Congress authorizes currently. Congress has the right to increase or decrease our benefits in whatever way it pleases. That is explicit in the original Social Security law, 1935. Source: Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act. In this Section, Congress reserved to itself the power to amend and revise the schedule of benefits.

  • The Master

    This is an op-ed piece filled with bad information. To say this is useless is an insult to useless.

  • brian waters

    so what do u propose?

  • RogueEconomist

    No Bronco, lets fix this one.

  • RogueEconomist

    Lets stop spending half our income on the military to blow up third world countries, defense is suppose to be about defense, not empire building, then we can honor our commitments to those that paid in every pay check for 50+ years or give me back the $500k+ with interest that has been paid in to the SS fund in my name over the years and we will call it even.

  • brian waters

    I did for 11 years and Id do it again if kids werent here

  • CFO Dick

    You are certainly correct that FDR knew that few people would collect SS initially and not for a very long time either. Using the same age of SS eligibility vs life span when SS was created people today would need to be 81-82 before they got their first SS check. Needless to say adjustment for benefit eligibility due to lifespan changes aren’t part of the political landscape in the U.S. It is easier to pass COLA legislation because getting free money is more popular than being denied benefits even for realistic reasons. Likewise trying to get people to understand it is a tax not an insurance payment and as such can be utilized or dealt with by politicians as they see fit is all part of the vast misinformation lie about SS. We even have Mr. Bulldog repetitively telling people they don’t know the laws or program like he does. It’s a closed self funded program..yeah closed-first SS then SSD 30+ years later. Less money more people. Closed. Sure. Happens when disability goes from physical inability to work to alcoholism, drugs, EI issues with kids and now refugees and foreign nationals who can get checks because Congress said so. Jeez lets just give evey one a check! Nah..it’s closed..until some lobbyist can get his group added. Hey, lets just tell everybody it will be okay in the end. Why? Because of the $80 trillion in net wealth in this country 75% of the people have only 4% of it. When push comes to pay me my SS that’s a whole lot of AR 15s pointed at the guys with the $77 trillion saying “Show Me the Money!’

  • tedshepherd

    Tom, short answer: big labor opposes effective action against illegal immigration for reasons that I leave to your evaluation. It seems to have a lot to do with getting more union members, more dues from them for union officials, and more voters for social programs that union officials favor. That’s my take; what’s yours? Content to blame inaction of illegal immigration solely on big business? I now quote in its entirety an email I got from the head of the AFL-CIO; please bear with me as I offer evidence for my comments. Translation of Trumka’s words: “aspiring Americans” means “illegal immigrant aliens.” His position is that American citizens have no rights to American jobs that foreigners do not also have. Notice to the slight of hand as Trumka refers to “11 million workers” as if all illegal immigrants are workers.

    long answer, an email from Trumka:


    When I think about immigration, I think about boats. I think about boats coming to America long ago, filled with hopeful workers in search of a better life.

    And I think about what those boats would look like now. They’d be turned in the other direction, deporting those hopeful workers and separating our families. Because America doesn’t welcome her children now—our broken patchwork of policies turns them away.

    Families are being separated because Congress has failed to act on a commonsense immigration process. The crisis on our worksites and in our communities can’t wait. That’s why I’m calling on President Obama to extend administrative relief to Americans in waiting. Sign the petition to join me.

    Some 11 million aspiring American workers, millions of them workers, are waiting for the President to act. And in the meantime, they are being deported at record numbers, ripped apart from their families and their homes.

    The labor movement never stands by when workers are mistreated. We don’t stand by when immigrant workers aren’t paid fair wages on the construction site, or when employers use shady tactics to fire hotel workers based on their immigration status when they stand up for their rights. And when we know there are jobs on the table, like the 800,000 new jobs that would be created by immigration reform, we fight like hell for every single one.

    That’s what immigration is about. It’s about work. About being paid fairly and bringing it home to support your family. About making a better life. And about knowing that if you can just work hard at a good job, your life will be better.

    Please sign the petition to ask President Obama to extend administrative relief to 11 million aspiring Americans:


    In Solidarity,


    Richard Trumka
    President, AFL-CIO

  • bronco1st

    So move to a country who has a system you like better – since you seem to lack any other solution.

  • bronco1st

    Thank you for pointing out that the current accounting “method” for estimating the debts of SS is based on the estimated benefits to be paid out over the next 75 years WITHOUT using the same timetable offset for expected revenues during that period (the expected revenue period use is only for 10 years). Accounting methods can and ARE used to warp the facts.

  • brian waters

    yadda yadda yadda fact is USA is a disgrace on all social services including medical care pensions education and government.

  • bronco1st

    More truth, the $18T debt our country now has is from conservatives handing out unfunded tax breaks to the rich (and some to the middle class), unfunded medicare part D and unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those items have been funded in part by the government taking money out of SS and replacing it with T-bills that come due down the road with the rationalization that by giving those breaks, the economy will increase (trickle down) enough to pay off those IOU T-bills as they come due. In the meantime, that money is accounted as debt and totaled into our national debt of $18T.

  • Tom

    Ur brain dead, my comment had nothing to do with political parties or the mortgage crises. But in TYPICAL Republican/conservative fashion u try to turn EVERYTHING into a partisan dispute.
    No worries I’ll play ur childish game with u. So since you’ve professed to be sane and an expert on the matter why don’t u share ur credentials and sources of information on the mortgage crises. Also clearly articulate how it was Democrats fault. Then be ready for me to come firing back with a lot of facts that make u look like the crazy, ignorant, fool.
    Remember ur the one that picked this fight!

  • rvn_sgt6768

    From the Seattle Times Newspaper

    “In 2009, the last year for which figures are available, employers
    reported wages of $72.8 billion for 7.7 million workers who could not be
    matched to legal Social Security numbers.

    That total hit a record $90.4 billion, earned by 10.8
    million workers, in 2007, just before the recession. Some of those were
    legal workers who simply made paperwork mistakes, but the majority are
    believed to be illegal immigrants.

    Immigrant advocates argue that illegal immigrants also pay sales tax, some income taxes and rent, part of which
    landlords use to pay property taxes, in addition to Social Security and
    Medicare taxes.”

    That’s money the illegal immigrants will never be able to get out of SS even if they somehow receive amnesty and are granted a path to citizenship.

  • bronco1st

    BS, you CANNOT receive SS payments without you or your spouse paying into it.

  • SamLDawg

    The author is an anonymous nut who is cherry-picking facts and information to paint a grim picture where none exists. He writes “Social Security’s various trust funds currently hold about $2.7 trillion in total assets, yet the government itself estimates the program’s liabilities to exceed $40 trillion.” That $40 trillion dollars is the amount expected to be paid out over the next 75 years. OF COURSE there isn’t that much in the trust fund right now.

  • Charles Taylor

    Some of us people working were counting on our pensions to help out with retirement. The anti-union, pro business government helped fix that we either lost what pensioons we had or they wern’t offered anymore. That was a part of our benefit package. We were told to invest in 401ks but not given any money to make up for the loss of a part of our benefit package namely our pension. Then to make matters worse the government borrowed from Social Security and never paid it back. They just kicked the can down the road saying there will be plenty of time to fix it. Well now the can can’t be kicked anymore and the people of retirement age or already retired are going to pay the price for government stupidity and greed.

  • bronco1st

    The truth is that the conservatives want to panic the public on SS hoping to end it or get people to warm up to the idea of privatizing SS. The capitalist on Wall St have been drooling over the trillions in SS since it’s inception and would love nothing better than to get those funds out of government control and into the stock markets where they can legally be siphoned off into the pockets of the ultra rich. End SS or privatize it has the same net result of having those assets funneled up to the rich either through inflation or boom and bust harvesting by the stock market banksters. I realize that the conservatives will scream that I’m a commie socialist fascist moron, but it’s your money they’re after.

  • Marc Wilson

    Mandatory participation. Borrowing from the program to fund government. Investment in government bonds instead of stock market. What could go wrong as the government robs it blind bankrupting it. If it had been decoupled from the general fund and the dollars invested in even stock market index funds there wouldn’t really be a problem. I hate social security but it screws the taxpayers because of the way it is managed. All around would rather have my dollars returned to me to invest privately with a real rate of return.

  • Bert

    And SS is a mess started by Democrats and the problems have been denied by Dems for 40 years or more. Matter of fact, they attack anyone who indicates their may be a problem, even today.

  • Bert

    Dan, I’m sorry, but you are all messed up on this. SS has a $35 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 50 years or so. It’s far different from your car loan because it’s like you paying for someone else’s car loan today and expecting another person to pay for someone else’s car loan tomorrow. Except that there are 5 people helping you pay today and only two people when you retire.

    The whole military spending thing is partisan crap. SS is a separate and much bigger problem. But not as big as Medicare.

  • Bert

    Stevo, you need to educate yourself. Nothing you posted is factual, and all displays your ignorance of the SS system. SS is not “okay” until 2040, not really anyway, but you would have to really have the ability to understand some things to get that.

  • SamLDawg

    Everything you wrote is pure fiction. Go do some actual research.

  • Bert

    Roland, you obviously have no idea what a Ponzi is. Also envy is coloring your view, but that’s a lefty thing. Educate yourself. It’s the best advice I can offer.

  • rvn_sgt6768

    Kindly cite your study listing that $113 Billion figure/year. Every report I read can’t seem to list illegals separately from all immigrant households.

  • Bert

    Government has no money it doesn’t take from someone else. There was no pilfering, as a ponzi, it’s failing as expected.

  • Bert

    Tom, you are crazy. You will be really upset when you figure out that the Great Recession was caused by Democrats trying to socialize the mortgage market.

  • 848484


  • bulldog4857

    it need not be debt. It can come from taxes also.

  • Bert

    You are forgetting your employer contribution which is another 6.2%. You will get even more upset when you figure out how the middle class and the wealthy are even more ripped off by SS.

  • Bert

    Trey, the Democrats (socialists) lied to you. You need to keep things straight. SS being a Ponzi was bound to collapse eventually, but this was complicated by the Democrats lying about the condition of SS for 40 years.

    The left dumbed down the education system, they have been controlling it since the 60s.

    You really need to educate yourself.

  • Bert

    But that’s an average. Some will be totally screwed so that the chosen can get their benefits. SS has always been a Democrat vote buying scheme.

  • Bert

    The money in the “trust” fund earns no interest either, at least not that isn’t represented by more debt from the general fund. It’s a cheap accounting gimmick.

  • Bert

    joe, Lenin would have loved you.

  • rvn_sgt6768

    And so then you do not want yours when you can finally collect it? I know some people who never were able to have a very good paying job all their lives who do not get very much from SS now that they are retired and would be more than happy to share yours. Oh, I see, complain as you do once you can grab yours that is exactly what you will do and then complain it is not bigger.
    SS’s stated purpose is “to provide retirees with a minimal level of income so they can have a roof over their heads and food on their tables” and how it achieves that is what you are complaining about not what would happen if it did not exist. Do you understand that almost every country in the world has some form of SS? Those that fare the worst are the ones that have become privatized such as some in South America. Poverty exists and how to treat it has been a subject of debate for as long as man has walked on earth. Sorry but most peoples do not agree with what you advocate ie which is to just let them suffer and die because they were unable to adaquately fund their the part of their lives when they were elderly and unable to provide for themselves. Again I am sorry you feel that is unworthy of any program that helps them. Your day will come if you live that long. Just don’t file for it or refuse to accept it when you are old enough to receive it and then you can say with a straight face all of what you have posted here.

  • Bert

    Now figure out how to do it.

  • Bert

    Horsepucky. SS is failing due to the fact that it’s a Ponzi and that there has been a major demographic shift in the US that is still working against it.

  • Oscar


    Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

    1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

    2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

    3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

    4.) That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

    5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

    Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to “put away,” you may be interested in the following:

    Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent “Trust” fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

    A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.

    Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

    A: The Democratic Party.

    Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

    A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

    Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

    A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

    Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

    And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

  • Bert

    Sorry, learn about SS, then post about it. Don’t post crap that isn’t true or things you have absolutely no idea of. It’s not that hard.

  • Bert

    Until the US is unable to borrow enough to repay it. Lefties never quite figure that one out.

  • Bert

    Sorry, Gary. Never trust socialists, or any government with your money. The USSC has determined that you are owed nothing for your forced contributions, they ceased to be yours the moment they were calculated. I’m not going to play you as dumb, unless you are a Democrat or lean left.

  • Bert

    Sorry, not true. It is failing on it’s own.

  • Bert

    Snake, your ignorance is duly noted. Nobody raided SS. Reagan fixed it for a time, he didn’t wreck it. Before you start complaining about the cap, learn about not only the payout caps, but the limits on credit given for earnings in the system. If you make more than $15k/yr you are being screwed by the system.

    Otherwise, you have just shown your gullibility to leftist propaganda. I read the article you got this from which was aimed at “useful idiots” unwilling to do their own research.

  • metalhead

    who wrote this crap, it is someone who evidentally doesn’t know first history, and second economics, how can a program have a surplus of over 3 trillion dollars and then boom bang be in debt, oh yea I can tell you. TELL CONGRESS TO PAY BACK THEIR IOU’S. The problem is not Social Security, its congress thinking that SS is their own damn private piggy bank, pay back what you borrowed(stole) and SS will just be fine. freekin idiots.

  • rvn_sgt6768

    Sorry Raymond but the Social Security Fund HAS NEVER been in the General Fund.From the social Security Website :

    “Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust
    fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

    A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social
    Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes
    are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was
    created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its
    inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security
    Trust Fund has never been “put into the general fund of the government.”

    Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing
    of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund
    is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action
    by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund
    were included in what is known as the “unified budget.” This
    means that every function of the federal government is included in a single
    budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security
    Trust Funds are “on-budget.” This budget treatment of the Social
    Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again
    taken “off-budget.” This means only that they are shown as a
    separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are
    “on-budget” or “off-budget” is primarily a question
    of accounting practices–it has no effect on the actual operations of
    the Trust Fund itself.”

    The Congress “borrows” from the fund by giving it IOU’s (T-bills) which are covered in the total long term debt carried by the USA. Meaning that as the T-bills come due the money goes back into the Fund or if the Fund has a shortfall before Congress does something to correct said short fall Congress would have to cover that shortfall. This debt to the Fund is safer than any other debt because it is backed by the full faith of the Government.

  • Fred Mertz

    Typical Democrat approach – don’t talk about the problem, talk about the Republicans.

  • Vietnam Vet

    Dan, if you are too lazy to research for yourself, then shut the hell up.

  • Trey Bee

    What the rich did is lie to people , and now after their hard work all the promises are broken from pensions to social security. They intentionally lowered taxes for stupid middle class tax payers. Chump change for what the rich got in lower taxes. Just to exhaust the government of funds. Now let the republicans gain control. Taxes will be raised disproportionately on the middle class. All social programs will be cut. There is a reason the rich dumbed down the US education system. To get a better grip on control

  • William_Larsen

    Lie Breaker,

    Ok you say there are lies here, point them out and lets us debate them.


  • William_Larsen

    Gary, So who do you want to continue to pay your benefits? You want to scam another person? That is just poor manners.

    Keep in mind that there are 119 million potential voters under age 46 and less than 90 million over 46. Being that you worked 50 years, do you remember the negative cash flow years of SS 1971 to 1983? What did you do vote for candidates who wanted to continue the scam?

  • Raymond Waters

    This problem was created by the government! Social security was placed in GENERAL FUND, as a result CLINTON(?) took millions out to pay national debt- NEVER PUT THE MONEY BACK! But, the government sure can give free money out to other countries, but doesn’t return money to social security!!! Social security was said-at time-to be only fund that was profitable-result they took the money!! SHOULD NEVER BE IN A GENERAL FUND!!!!

  • Dan Chaase

    Exactly how much are the illegals getting from Medicaid and other government welfare programs?
    I would like to see an actual number with proof of its source.

    A recent study of Federal Benefits being paid out such as food stamps, showed that 80% of the recipients of these benefits are……………………………………….WORKING but can’t live.
    So where is all the gain in your idea?? Why not look at realistic things instead of being just another GOP/TPer who do nothing and have no ideas.

  • Dan Chaase

    First of all, the myth that the masses of our population given their leash will save for the future. This proves they don’t and won’t! Second, why is it bad if the U.S. provides leadership in this area and acts like daddy and mommy and protect these children from themselves.

    The liabilities of the SS is no different from the liability on your car loan. If you stay working and you get your little 3% raise a year, your car payment becomes less and less of your total household expenses, now doesn’t it.

    In the case of SS, we have to up the contributions some way or another. NOT doing it is not an option.
    As budgets are always a give and take, someone has to take the lead and start funding this program.
    One other problem tho is that there are less young people coming along to do the work to refill the coffers as the baby boomers sail off into the sunset.

    While the liability is $40T, it is off in the future, so the beginning has to be to raise the contribution of the workers and the employers. Second some laws have to be passed to assure that the cash is available today for at least 10 years out. I guess if it means a few less battleships or tanks that will never be used, maybe that’s it.

    If it is necessary to really really cost out the military actions and the pay back. Note the GOP was asked by the Prez to re-authorize the activities in the ME and they went on vacation and have never ever talked about it again. That is irresponsibility at its highest. There is nothing to win over there for us for now or in the future. If you think it is amusing to piddle on the Putin for a while, great–get over it and cost it out.
    Nothing to gain.

  • bulldog4857

    I haven’t seen an accurate description of SS financing here yet. The SS Act of 1935 requires all excess SS monies not used to pay benefits be invested in treasury obligations and they are. The cash from the purchase is moved to the general fund and spent on all general fund items. No particular president nor congress started raiding the fund. The 1969 unified budget offered by LBJ was for budget presentation only and did nothing to change the way SS is financed. Of the current $2.7T in fund value about $1T is compound interest from being loaned to the general fund — value that would not otherwise exist. The wage amount subject to SS payroll tax has NEVER been unlimited (Medicare is now unlimited). Anyone telling you otherwise is lying. President Reagan did all he could do to keep the system solvent for the boomers without completely restructuring the way it is financed. Perhaps he should have, but it didn’t happen. By raising the tax rate to over 6% (each), the money started flowing in during the 1990’s. It was Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama who got the benefit.

  • William_Larsen

    Read the testimony of A.J. Altmeyer


    Want more analysis – http://www.justsayno.50megs.com/ss.html

  • William_Larsen

    John Hill, what was its accomplishment?

    Was it to squeeze out general revenue taxes to pay SS benefit while borrowing funds to pay for the General Budget? Total overall taxes have remained fairly constant over 60 years. The only difference is the make up of those taxes. SS taxes prior to 1950 was tiny now people pay more in payroll taxes than they do in federal income taxes.

    Is creating more than $35 Trillion infunded liabilities, yet still promise to pay benefits to worker a key objective?

    Is the ability to raise the a tax from 2% to 10.6% a key objective?

    Is the ability to raise the base from $3,000 to $118,500 since 1937 a key objective?

    Is the objective to make most workers dependent on a politician than themselves?

    If scaling back of benefits are needed, then why were they not done 40 years ago?

  • bulldog4857

    The 1969 “unified budget” presented by President Johnson did NOT merge the SS and general funds. It was for budgeting only and did not change the way SS is financed.
    The $500B people think is being taken from Medicare is offset by projected savings.

  • William_Larsen

    Medicaid is not paid for from Social Security payroll taxes so how does this help?

    Stopping all military involvement would reduce General Budget expenses, again how does this help Social Security?

    Fresh ideas are great, but Social Security’s 1977 Benefit formula is a mathematical divergent series – As wage growth increases, so do future initial OASI benefits at the same exact rate – think of it as the cousin to inflation.

    If there were any feasible ways to solve the 78 year old social security problem, they would have been implemented by now.

  • Clear Fog

    Anytime someone claims that they are not espousing some wild conspiracy theory, they are.

  • William_Larsen

    How can anyone determine if social security is fine or broke? All one needs to do is look at history. In 1937 only half the work force was covered by social security (those with steady average wages). Those with non steady/low wages (house keeping, food staff, military, farmers, etc) were not included. Initially the programs tax was to increase every three years by 1% from 2% in 1937 to 6% by 1949. Early on Congress put a freeze on raising the payroll tax – stayed 2% until 1950. By 1950 with now ten cohorts of beneficiaries and another 10 more yet to retire over ten years which would normally make up a full compliment of beneficiaries it was about to be unable to pay benefits.

    In 1950 the raised the base and tax by 50%, began enrolling those not covered by 1935 SS ACt. In essence the created a second tier SS program to fund the first tier’s beneficiaries. However, this came with a steep price. In 1943 & 1944 A. J. Altmeyer testified before congress stating that SS had a $16.5 Billion unfunded liability and that the payroll tax needed to immediately raised to 6-7%. If not future workers would pay more for their benefits than they were worth.

    Initial the concept was that workers would fund their own benefits through taxes they paid – large scale 401K. However, congress never determined what the tax v benefit should be based on years worked, years collected, return on the funds paid by workers. SS had no design – no financial rule book, just congress that reserved the right to alter, change or repeal any section of the SS Act without liability.

    The payroll tax finally reached 6% mid 60’s. Between 1957 and 1965 SS ran some negative cash flows. With a fully funded program, SS should never run negative cash flows. Each cohort should take no more out in benefits than they contributed as a cohort plus interest at the US Treasury Rate (what the trust fund is paid). However those born prior to 1920 took more than ten times out, 1925 took more than 5 times out. For those born prior to 1938, those cohorts took far more out of the SS program than they contributed.

    SSA refers to this as the legacy debt. This debt has never been paid and is a snow ball. From 1971 to 1983 SS-OASI ran negative cash flows each year and exhausted the trust fund in 1983. Congress authorized SS-OASI to borrow $11 Billion from SS-DI and Medicare – which was paid back after the large tax and base increases of 1983, the increase in retirement age from 65 to 67 for those born after 1938 and the taxation of benefits. This Big Patch was to solve the problem until 2064 when the trust fund would once again be exhausted.

    Congress know little about budgeting – the last General Budget Surplus was 1957. There was on Unified Budget Surplus in 2000 due solely to including the social security and medicare surplus payroll taxes (which cannot be used to fund the General Fund).

    Want a simple way to determine what the payroll tax needs to be to pay benefits? The targeted benefit is 41% of life time indexed wages. The current payroll tax is 10.6% for OASI and 1.8% for DI for a total of 12.4%. However, both OASI and DI have separate dedicated tax rates and trust funds as well as totally different criteria so it is good to keep them separate when crunching numbers. What we want to determine is at what point will the 10.6% OASI tax paid by the average worker be insufficient to pay the 41% life time indexed wage benefit to the average Beneficiary.

    How many workers does it take to balance revenues with expenses? 41% is our cost and 10.6% is our tax so how many workers to support one beneficiary? 41% divided by 10.6% = 3.88 workers. This needs to be adjusted by the difference in wage growth and inflation. Since wage growth has historically been greater than inflation (may change here soon), there is some advantage on the wage/revenue side that can reduce the number of workers by ~ 1/2 a worker. I like to call this critical worker to beneficiary ratio. As long as this ratio is maintained. SS-OASI should be able to pay benefits forever with a 10.6% payroll tax.

    The problem is the number of births per woman has been dropping for over 100 years. There have been booms and busts about every 25- 32 years. The pill in 1961 and Row V Wade in 1973 have reduced births by 35%+. Since the mid to late 70’s the birth rate has fallen to 2.1 babies per woman – zero population growth. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that 18 years later we will see fewer workers, yet we will see a growing number of beneficiaries for 65 more years from the mid 70’s unless a lot die or are born.

    The worker to beneficiary ratio will drop below 2.5 within 45 years. This means 10.6% times 2.5 workers add in the 1/2 worker you get 31.8% of life time average indexed benefits or a 77% payable benefit which matches SSA’s statements. However, there is one adjustment that needs to take place and that as the worker to beneficiary ratio drop so does the value of the 1/2 worker which was valued at 13% per worker. So the payable benefit is really closer to 70% of scheduled benefits.

    One way to keep the worker to beneficiary ratio constant is to raise the retirement age.This means you work longer, pay more and collect fewer years. You may get 100% of scheduled benefits by in actuarial terms, you are getting the same 70%.

    For those born after 1985, there is nothing that can be done to change your value you get from Social Security. you are paying 10.6% of wages for a benefit that will return 0-1/2% while paying mortgage interest of 4%, student loan interest of 6% or credit card debt of 15%, or you do not have enough to contribute to a 401K and obtain employer matching funds.

    Is Social Security a good value for those born before 1938 yes?

    Is Social Security a good value for those born after 1938 to 1946, questionable.

    Is Social Security a good value for those born after 1947, no?

    Prohibition was repealed, the catastrophic healthcare bill of 1989 was repealed. There are 119 million potential voters under 46 and less than 90 million over 46. Do the math. Will you let your representative know your thoughts on SS? It is up to you.


  • Carol Phillips

    I think that Roland is messing with you.

  • bulldog4857

    Simply not true. The SS Act of 1935 REQUIRES all excess SS monies be invested in treasury obligations and they always have been. No particular president nor congress started raiding the fund.

  • seaforte

    ..except for one minor issue – the money that we should be stashing away for our retirement – roughly 6.2% of our salary (payroll tax) is currently being used to pay for today’s retirees, while our future benefits are most probably non-existent – the exit strategy from social security means roughly tens years or more of contributors are bound to be “screwed” by our system. Good thing they finally legalized gay marriage – I feel a sodomy coming on…

  • bulldog4857

    The SSA is required by the SS Act of 1935 to invest the trust fund in treasury obligations and always has. No particular subsequent Congress nor President started raiding the fund.

  • bulldog4857

    Poppycock. Every penny borrowed from SS is represented with a bond held by SSA. The current tally is about $2.8T. There was never any 12T in the system. The SS Act of 1935 (available online) clearly specifies the tax is to be stepped up to 3% in 1945. But because of WWII the step-up was delayed until 1960. This is one reason the trust fund never had much value until reform in 1986 raised the tax rate.

  • bulldog4857

    Yes, modifications. Code for we ran out of money so grab some more. There’s no reason SS should NOT have achieved it’s objectives. Welfare would have achieved the same objective. It’s taking from one person and giving to another. Period.

  • zekemc

    Well the Republicans are running Congress.

  • Vietnam Vet

    You could start to rectify the problem in 3 phases. 1st: Kick all illegals off Medicaid and other government welfare programs. Those programs were designed for Americans. 2nd: Stop all the military involvement in foreign politics. That is called imperialism, and it’s time it was stopped because the real cause is corporate greed to enter foreign markets (for natural resources). If another country rules from communism or socialism, let them be, it’s not our concern. 3rd: Get rid of the politicians who cannot manage (nearly all of them) and replace them with fresh ideas and a sense of cooperation to accomplish SOMETHING.

  • James Lowder

    Yeah they take money from medicare to give to obamacare but seniors aren’t eligible for obamacare.

  • John Hill

    I think it’s safe to say that the author is a conservative Republican, probably with enough personal wealth so he doesn’t care if Social Security exists or not. The US Social Security is one a small number of social welfare systems in the world that has accomplished its objective for 80 years. With some modifications to contributions and some scaling back of benefits, SSI will continue to provide retirees with a minimal level of income so they can have a roof over their heads and food on their tables for the next 80 years.

  • thats only half of it

    half of what your writing is the truth…the problem with media reporting is there leaving out the 12.5 trillion that’s been borrow out with government i.o.u.’s to the people…not to mention that is how the federal government got so big plus the percentage was never suppose to rise , much like the federal tax at 6.2% today was never suppose to go over 2%….the problem isn’t the people paying it…it’s the people watching over it…congress allow themselves to borrow from it …..thats the real story…if they didn’t with intr . it be self staining…i notice you did give those figure’s out ……. what you have wrote is half the story

  • Tom

    I would also add, illegal immigration and it’s estimated costs which are around $113B / year according to one study I read. After 20+ years why has virtually NO PROGRESS made on illegal immigration? Because it fattens the bottom lines of the companies and corporations owned by the ultra wealthy from this country. The ultra wealthy control the government and they want the status quo to change because they are benefiting greatly from it. Once again do a little research to see where the money and support is coming from to deal with illegal immigrants and its associated costs. If you dig deep enough you will find a complicated web of foundations, PACs, and organizations ultimately tied to the ultra wealthy.
    Thing about it for a moment, $113B / year, that would be HUGE start toward shoring up our social insurance programs.

  • joe

    What about Congresses’ free TAX PAYER healthcare and pension they get for life after one term. Does that end too??

  • bulldog4857

    Total , absolute nonsense. The 1969 “unified budget” had no legal affect whatsoever on the way SS is financed nor did it merge the trust fund and general fund as many claim. The 1935 SS Act requires excess SS monies be invested in treasury obligations and they always have been. Neither LBJ, nor your least favorite president nor any Congress after 1935 started raiding it.

  • joe

    What nonsense….”Just like most western governments, the US government has gone deeply into debt to fund its social insurance programs”…..Nope not really. In the USA’s case “deeply into debt” actually came from uses wars, bloated military and the ushering of supply side economics, you know, where you cut taxes to the wealthiest humans ever under the useless for most, idea that tax cuts create economic boon? It actually creates debt and shortfalls in budgets. But does make the wealthy wealthier. Also SS is not ‘for the needy’. That would be like Medicaid. Its actually a tool for retirement age meaning elderly and is an insurance program where people PAY INTO it for years. ITs not free. Its not welfare.. And these same congress have barrowed against it for years….

  • bulldog4857

    No pilfering has ever occurred. The 1935 SS Act requires investment in treasury obligations and that has always happened. The cash is sent to the general fund and spent on all general fund items. The SSA holds $2.7T in bonds to be redeemed as need to pay benefits.

  • bulldog4857

    Actually, Anabelle, it was. The SS Act of 1935 requires investment in treasury obligations in order to make the fund grow. Cash from the purchase is sent to the general fund and spent on all general fund items. A few minutes spent studying SS financing would educate you so you don’t spread misinformation.

  • bulldog4857

    Absolutely nothing was stolen. Per the 1935 SS Act all SS monies not used to pay benefits are invested in treasury obligations. These are represented by bonds held
    by SSA. They must be repaid over the next 20 years as boomers draw down.

  • RudolphScrapper

    Wingnut propaganda on steroids. What a load of hot stinking BS.

  • buba

    Back in the 70’s the federal government started stealing from Social Security and adding IOU’s and to this day the continue to steal from it. And by the way it was reported on the news back then telling the American people that government was putting IOU’s and how the promised to pay it back. Government is incompetent when it comes to money they can’t stand to have an account were money is just sitting around.

  • bulldog4857

    A lock-box was a truly silly idea. Uninvested money bears no return (interest). Had the trust fund not been loaned to the general fund it would have only $1.8T or so now because about $1T of the total is compound interest from the loan. The 1.8T would go only 13 years for the boomers, not 20 as expected.

  • Tom

    Odd how the author singles out social insurance programs without assigning any blame to tax welfare for the ultra wealthy and corporations, the latter which is essentially more tax welfare for the ultra wealthy since the hold approx 65% of the outstanding corporate shares in this country. They also fail to mention military spending which also primarily benefits the wealthy and elite in this country since they are the biggest players in the military industrial complex. Did you see the recent headlines, the Pentagon spent $43B for a gas station in Afghanistan and is refusing to explain why? Ask yourself who is benefiting from that and how the Pentagon can get away with it. Perhaps because the ultra wealthy are firmly in control of the country, doubts go read up on the Supreme Courts Citizens United ruling and then look at what how much private money has increased in politics after that ruling.
    Wake up my fellow Americans, the needy or ordinary Americans are not the problem, if you do a little research you will find the the money trail leads to the ultra wealthy in this country. Again you have doubts? Look at the relationship between increases in inequality and the Bush tax cuts and passage of Citizens United. Ask yourself how the ultra wealthy have accumulated wealth and a record pace and record amounts over the past 15 years, ask yourself how the ultra wealthy have taken all of the “real” income gains in the USA since the Great Recession? Ask yourself why the media always blames everything other than those things that benefit the ultra wealthy? (hint: perhaps its because the ultra wealthy own and control the media in the USA).
    We all need to spend more time educating ourselves and opening our eyes, we shouldn’t be pointing fingers at one another it’s very clear who the culprits are.

  • bulldog4857

    Both of you need to spend 20 minutes or so reading on the way SS is financed and the non-effect the 1969 unified budget had on SS financing.

  • bulldog4857

    You have absolutely NO BASIS to claim it will never be repaid. The bonds held by SSA are bona-fide debt of the US gov’t and must be paid like any other debt. It will stress the general fund to do so but not doing it would be default. Congress won’t let that happen.

  • Jerry

    So basically you are saying if your poor just become rich and you will be fine. (Eye Roll)

    Unfortunately, not everyone has rich parents who can loan them a million dollars (Donald Trump) to get their feet off the ground.

    I get so sick and tired off well off people acting as if all poor people are poor by choice instead of circumstance.

    Get rid of the taxable income cap for Social Security and the program will be just fine.

  • tempered1

    Help! Help! The Sky is Falling!!!

    OMG – if this article is any indicator, anybody below 50 years of age best start preparing for armageddon – cause it’s comin, and comin fast! Social Security is on
    the ropes, there ain’t no fixin it, and those thinking it’ll be there when they retire best start FENDING FOR THEMSELVES NOW – TODAY!!!

    WOW! A ton of bloviating – but WHERE’S THE FACTS??? Names are dropped and numbers spewed – but WHERE’S THE FACTS???

    Hey author – how about next time before you shoot off your mouth you get your facts and figures straight – or at the least back up your words with verifiable facts and figures (youi know – documents, ledgers, balance sheets, statistics, etc..)!

    I’m guessing you wrote this to scare people – but you failed! The only thing you’ve accomplished is to give any knowledgeable person a good chuckle!


  • bulldog4857

    Wrong on all counts. The 1969 unified budget did NO SUCH THING yet the urban legend persists. The SS Act of 1935 requires all excess SS monies be invested in treasury obligations and they are. The SS fund was in trouble from the very beginning. Not until reform under Reagan was the tax raised and fund started accumulating value.

  • bulldog4857

    They do. SS is a closed, self funded system. Welfare is not.

  • bulldog4857

    That LBJ started raiding the fund is well worn urban legend. The 1960 “unified budget” is oft cited as the start of it but the truth is that the budget had NO LEGAL effect on the way SS was financed starting in 1935 with the SS Act. The budget was for presentation only. The unified budget was stopped by act of Congress in 1990 so it can no longer be blamed. The SS Act of 1935 requires all excess SS monies be invested in treasury obligations and they always have been.

  • bulldog4857

    It most certainly IS counted. In fact, the SS trust fund debt at $2.7T is the single largest item of the 18.5T. Of the $2.7T about $1T is compound interest that would not exist in the debt had the trust fund not been loaned to the general fund.

  • bulldog4857

    Take your walker and your dentures when you storm the SS office.

  • Jonathan Pisano

    Change the channel; you sound like an idiot.

  • Jonathan Pisano

    Social Security can be saved by raising the amount of income subject to withholding. This has been done several times before, including once in the 1980’s by none other than Ronald Reagan. Without Medicare millions of seniors will go w/o insurance, there is no market for them, and if there were the costs would be prohibitive. Back before the program, hospitals wouldn’t admit a senior w/o having someone guarantee payment. Grandma died at home w/o care. The freedom author talks about “…is just another word for nothing left to lose.”

  • Alfonse

    Well the U.S. Government made sure that I would never collect any part of it, discharged from the US Navy after Car accident, the other driver was drunk, I was on my way home from work.
    Turned down State, Federal Courts. Then ten years elapsed and no more credits for qualification.
    Glad the VA took over for disability, after seven years of trying to verify my medical records.

  • 848484


  • Lie breaker

    FYI you also forgot to add OUTSIDE HIS MIND looking in… This article is MANURE –?–file it inside==>?VINI,VIDI,VICI..

  • Gary

    They better damn well pray hard it stays solvent until after i’m dead. I didn’t sacrifice my pay for 50 years, just to be told, sorry. The US government OWES me, don’t play me for dumb, or meek!

  • Lie breaker

    The article is filled with subterfuge and absurd.. This needs to be amended or debunked.. What is wrong with you journalist has sanity also flown over the Coo Coo nest along with 85% of CONGRESS?????

  • Lie breaker

    This article is absurd and filled with lies, Print Truth not someone’s else infected cesspool of Prevarication.. If this article is not amended then other options will indeed be explored…

  • myspiritrocks

    Sovereign Man, you really need to research before you write articles such as this that may upset people.. Social Security does not contribute to the 18.5 trillion deficit. It is not counted. Politicians just want people to think that so they can do away with it. Not happening. Also illegal immigrants who have put nothing in are taking out under Obama. While welfare is a bottomless pit, treasonous-elected-on-the-take-government wants to take it from our Seniors. Not for long though. #Trump2016!!!

  • Dfallis

    Unlike Obama, it was taken money taken from the people with a promise to be handed back at age 63 (originally), and then LBJ turned it into a slush fund. Had it been used as it was designed, it wouldn’t be broke or anything like, but it has been used for every welfare program and give-me program the government has come up with. Now, it’s broke and they want to ignore the embezzlement and tell people “Oh sorry, we just cannot give your money back.” That’s the biggest crock of bs that’s come down since Obama has been in office. He didn’t do it all and “entitlement programs” are 65% of the budget, but social security is the booger in all those, welfare and the give-mes have caused it. FYI, no one is entitled to money they never earned or paid in to the government.

  • Ken

    Are you really this ignorant or are you just trying extra hard tonight.

  • Ken

    You should use you computer to look up the history of SS and who in fact raided it. Spreading lies does not make it true.

  • Simon James

    I think the word I am looking for is “Alarmist.”

  • Ken

    Nice try – but Lyndon Johnson moved SS from its own budget into the annual consolidated budget to hide the cost of the Vietnam War and his Great Society program. As I recall Detroit was to be the model city for urban renewal and the great society. How is that working for you 50 years later.

  • Ken

    $100K is a nice annual income in retirement.

  • Maxmiliion

    They just took another 3.2 Billion from the trust fund again today. Which now brings the total owed by the US Government to it’s citizens is approx 3 TRILLION DOLLARS! That’s right, 3 TRILLION Dollars of YOUR Money they have STOLEN! No bonds given, no IOU’s given. They just take it. And then they write articles like this to scare the hell out of you so they can take the rest and tell you to work until you die!!! That’s how much the Government of this GREAT(Once) Country of ours cares about YOU!.

  • Ken

    The people are poor because they could never save for the future – always spending money on wants and not needs. SS was designed for all workers with the people paying the most into SS actually getting far less as a percentage of what they paid then those poor people you refer to. Wiht a pension SS and saving along with a home that is paid for I will have over $3 million to spend over the next 20 years – and spend it and pass it on to my children I will. It’s time for people to take responsibility for their own lives and not go crying to the government about how unfair life is.

  • Phil Latio

    Eventually they will move the minimum collection age to 100, unless you are a drug addict or an illegal with an anchor baby.

  • Phil Latio

    How do you say social security in Spanish? Socialé de securiado?

  • Phil Latio

    All this talk of a well funded program like SS going broke but welfare and all other unearned entitlements seem to have an unlimited source of funding.

  • Troy Tyler

    What a wonderful lines of bull……The writer on this article is way off base on a few things….The reason SS is broke is the fine people we have in Washington over the years they have dug into the pot so many times for pork spending until it’s all gone…..(But they still got their raises every year)….So this is what Obama is going to pitch to the public when he starts to cut SS payments….And it is going to happen unless we get a real leader as president…………….

  • Phil Latio

    SS was fine until LBJ came along and decided to merge it with the general fund, kinda like putting the ex wife’s name on the bank account. After that it basically became nothing more than an extension of the federal income tax.

  • anabelle kyrie

    I agree… but that money was NEVER meant to be a government GENERAL SLUSH fun… to rape at their leisure….

  • anabelle kyrie

    This article fails to report that the U.S. government currently owes the Main Social Security Retirement Fund 2.6 trillion dollars…. It has supplied T-Bill I.O.U’s which will NEVER be repaid!!! Not to mention the latest ripoff of 150 billion from the SS Fund to pay for the just approve 2 year budget.


    This article is horseshit. SS has always had the money to pay benefits. It is a trust. BUT and that’s a big but with all caps, those wascely politicians have been raiding this trust for decades to fund all sorts of things WE THE PEOPLE don’t need. The latest has been those lovely wars the prior administration thought prudent to start. Maybe the corporate tax rate should push up a tick to compensate for all those no bid contracts that seemed ever so juicy at the time. And were! Time for these folks to start paying back the people they robbed.

  • Mario Andretti

    Seems like just yesterday when Candidate Gore pleaded that we put the “lockbox” out of reach. However Congress wasn’t having it asthose trillions were just too inviting and now the interest payments on the SS money they “borrowed” are truly scary.

  • Lindy

    How many billions have been stolen from this fund in the last 5 years to pay for other things that politicians want funded?

  • spaceranger

    ‘In a recently proposed resolution, H. Res 488, Congress states point
    blank that Social Security “was never intended by Congress to be the
    sole source of retirement income for families.”’

    Nothing new there. That’s what my high school teacher taught us in Economics class 48 years ago. I’ve always remembered what he said and never looked at SocSec as anything other than a nice-to-have but not a foundation for retiring on.

  • Snakemam

    The Republicans are primarily to blame. You just have to do the math. Back in 1986 Ronald Reagan signed into law his raping of the Sociall Security program. It was part of his Reaganomics package and changed the amounts paind i to the program. Before then everyone paid on every dollar they mede. After that they started at $50,000 and increasing to a little over $100,00 now. After ’86 everything made above that level was no longer taxed. The result after 30 years is trillions of dollars missing from the trust fund. That is the number one reason the program is in trouble. It’s the reason they had to raise the retirement age. The reason they will ned to raise it again and the reason they will cut benifits. Thanks Ron, the buggest con man in presidenrial hustory. He short changed every working man and woman and ammazincly got cheered for doing so.

  • John Oliver

    Did you know the Treasury Department released a study without fan fare that shows America would have a surplus if we went back to the 2008 spending levels!

  • Bob Wintle

    Yes pilfering it starting with LBJ then slick Willie!! I won’t even comment on what the bozo in the white house has done to it!!

  • Brian Napier

    As long as workers pay in, the trust fund will never “run out of money” or go “bankrupt. When the last of the baby boomers retire, sometime around 2030, the individuals paying in will only cover about 75% of the benefit under current funding formulas. While this is still a great concern in need of new legislation, it is far from the doom and gloom portrayed by the writer.


    Look at the Call for the Convention of the States one of many things we are looking at.


    You can help check the web site and see if your state has passed the enabling legislation. If the have not talk to you state legislators, call you friends to call your state legislators. This is a movement of the people not the politicians.

  • sam hershenhorn

    If I am not Mistaken, our government is not paying for this, this is funded by the workers who contribute and pay a payroll tax as well as their employers do during the workers employment period. If it is not solvent and has enough money, it may be from lack of jobs, or somebody is pilfering it.

  • pokerdad4ever

    I pray you get 6 more.

  • M Lloyd

    Another ill-informed commenter…It is not an insurance program…you are guaranteed nothing, you have purchased nothing…it is a tax and Congress doles it out as they see fit…spend it as they see fit…It’s the same trick they used with Obamacare…tell you it’s one thing, then go to court and learn it a tax. As such you have no right or say…except if you muster the courage to vote the politicians that lied to you out. But that will never happen…it’s much too much fun to be lied to.

  • pokerdad4ever

    100,000, you made it? Where do you live, in Povertyville? 100K is 2 years for a husband and wife.

  • Oscar Linda Tapia

    the postal workers and politicians are the ones that are putting the government deeply in dept !!!


    When SS was established it looked very different from what it looks today. In any case it was never meant to replace more than 40% of your earned wages. The congress have added benefits that were never part of the financial equation at the start. The “Trust Fund” is really part of the $18.5T debt that the government owes, LBJ brought the SS Trust Fund on to the budget in order to help hide the cost of the Viet Nam war and to finance the War on Poverty. The Obama administration is in the process of taking $500B from the “Medicare Trust Fund” to assist in the funding for the PPACA (Obamacare), the fund will run out of money between 2030 and 2032, I will be 88 so I will not much care. My children and grandchildren will care. I am working for the organization that is attempting to Call a Convention of the States under article 5 of the constitution to by pass the present political class and propose amendment to the constitution to prevent the over spending and over regulation of the economy. We have 28 of the 34 needed state.

  • Daniel Sanford

    Social Security was robbed by Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Congress up to this day.

  • M Lloyd

    You haven’t a clue what you are talking about. FDR knew in the long term it was untenable. But the government needed money and few people at that time would collect. Blaming the Republicans is just plain stupid. Johnson was the one to first raid SS. And since obviously you don’t know this…SS is a tax and as a tax Congress can do whatever they want with the money. The Supreme Court has ruled that you have no right to SS. If people truly understood the Ponzi Scheme that SS is the backlash would be something to see. But people like you believe what you want to believe and ignore the truth. SS funds belong to the government, not you…it’s the greatest transfer of wealth in the world today.

  • Roland P

    Or giving it to people who don’t need it, don’t meet the POOR criteria. Its an Insurance Program and NOT a Ponzi Scheme where everyone who puts in lets say 30,000 in a lifetime, they don’t automatically get to take out $300,000 when they are NOT POOR…..????? Duhhhh……

  • Roland P

    Well, its an Insurance Program but was used like a Ponzi Scheme by Politicians. Just because you paid your SSI Premiums, you don’t cash out unless you need the Insurance. If everyone including the Rich tap into it, it won’t work, plus you need Jobs back here to pay for it………..If your worth over $100,000 excluding your Home, you should not qualify for SSI, because you made it. SSI was for People who work a lifetime but are still poor in old age and can’t make ends meet.

  • Stevo One

    So, what ever happened to the “Lockbox”. George W? This guy is a bit off, thoug, as SS is OK until the early 2040 and Medicare is good for another 10 at least. We could fix both by raising the maximum earnings limit from the about $106K it is now to a $1Million.

  • th3142

    Let’s look at the Government pension program. Why should they have a separate program? Let us also consider holding an elected position was never meant to be a career. All elected positions should have term limits and their pension amounts are beyond ridiculous!

  • amosnme

    Put the money back into Social Security that the republicans have been stealing for years. The government really has no right to have anything to say about Social Security. It is not a government program, so keep your hands off it and stop threatening to end it.

  • nolan

    In the first place the government keeps pulling money out of its funds to support other projects and the government let the jobs for american people go to China and Mexico so that there isn’t to many people putting funds back in.,Then yeasterday they are saying that the 401 k’s are in trouble. What in the hell is going on????

  • Wayne Wiesner

    if the gov’t had not been steeling from it there would be plenty of money in it