Victor....
Answer me this.
Am I incorrect in my assertion that as originally set up, the funds in the Social Security trust were to be sacrosanct. Untouchable by any government entity for any purpose other than that for which it was originally prescribed?

And has that trust both in literal terms of the money fund and in terms of the public trust, not been violated?

It has been raped and raped every day for many a year.
That is why SS is a ponzi scheme.

As the USA has what Japan is now going through (not the earthquake) it will become apparent to Americans what a ponzi scheme it is.

If it was exactly like FDR set it up, then there would be no issue in letting people direct where they want their portion invested. But because it is a ponzi scheme the money that was supposed to be put aside for each person isn't there. It has been stolen and the people raped!

---

Victor....
Answer me this.
Am I incorrect in my assertion that as originally set up, the funds in the Social Security trust were to be sacrosanct. Untouchable by any government entity for any purpose other than that for which it was originally prescribed?

And has that trust both in literal terms of the money fund and in terms of the public trust, not been violated?

It has been raped and raped every day for many a year.
That is why SS is a ponzi scheme.

As the USA has what Japan is now going through (not the earthquake) it will become apparent to Americans what a ponzi scheme it is.

If it was exactly like FDR set it up, then there would be no issue in letting people direct where they want their portion invested. But because it is a ponzi scheme the money that was supposed to be put aside for each person isn't there. It has been stolen and the people raped!

No It hasn't, the social security number(SSN) is only a number with information on where to send a check when You're the right age and for tracking for tax purposes, plus other uses like for an Id in the military on tags, and the fund is not sacrosanct(unchangeable), SSA has always invested money in Treasury Bonds from Day one, So as I said before how can it be stolen? Congress can and does make laws, Social Security is not immune from that, the SSA does not and has not stolen any money invested in Social Security, a Ponzi scheme is where there is one person benefiting from the rest and they don't last long. SSA has outlasted many people who could have been at the head of such a scheme, So You have a baseless fear and are fear mongering in ignorance. Let Me guess are You old enough to apply yet? Come back and tell US when you've applied and gotten Your 1st check.

Ponzi vs. Social Security wrote:

Social Security is and always has been either a "pay-as-you-go" system or one that was partially advance-funded. Its structure, logic, and mode of operation have nothing in common with Ponzi schemes or chain letters or pyramid schemes.

The first modern social insurance program began in Germany in 1889 and has been in continuous operation for more than 100 years. The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi's scheme lasted barely 200 days.

In case You need math help, that's 76 Years and counting and since in a Ponzi Scheme there is usually only one person who really benefits, then who would this be? The President? Ridiculous. Congress is the only one to benefit over 76 years, And then the Congress has been steadily paying back what was legally borrowed and not stolen, Congress has the power to do so as delegated by the US Constitution and the amendments thereof. Dispute that If You want, Preferably in the US Courts, Don't bother with SSA is not Constitutional crap as that was decided back in 1937...

As social security was never meant be setup like a dedicated savings account, If You think that is the case, then by all means take the SSA to court, You'd lose. It's well known and true that Social Security invests every penny received into Treasury Bonds, You're implying that money has been stolen from a dedicated account which has never existed based on the false premise that money from FICA taxes is supposed to go into said type accounts meant for You only, An SSN is not an account number with money in It, Here's a quote on the SSN itself.

SSN wrote:

In the United States, a Social Security number (SSN) is a nine-digit number issued to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and temporary (working) residents under section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2). The number is issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration, an independent agency of the United States government. Its primary purpose is to track individuals for taxation purposes.

Oh and I doubt You could do better than SSA does as It's meant to be a safe investment, Not a toy to play with and risk losing on Wall Street.

AARP wrote:

Myth #3: I could invest better on my own.

Maybe you could, and maybe you couldn't. But the point of Social Security isn't to maximize the return on the payroll taxes you've contributed. Social Security is designed to be the one guaranteed part of your retirement income that can't be outlived or lost in the stock market. It's a secure base of income throughout your working life and retirement. And for many, it's a lifeline. Social Security provides the majority of income for at least half of Americans over age 65; it is 90 percent or more of income for 43 percent of singles and 22 percent of married couples. You can, and should, invest in a retirement fund like a 401(k) or an individual retirement account. Maybe you'll enjoy strong returns and avoid the market turmoil we have seen during the past decade. If not, you'll still have Social Security to fall back on.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Victor...
You are in denial of the simple fact that funds have been taken out of the SS trust and put into the general fund where they were spent for other purposes.
These funds have never been repaid to the SS fund, which is at least in large part why it is in so much trouble now.

Dammit, Vic. Why do you think they keep cutting back your payments and withholding cost of living increases????

Do you refute this?

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Victor...
You are in denial of the simple fact that funds have been taken out of the SS trust and put into the general fund where they were spent for other purposes.
These funds have never been repaid to the SS fund, which is at least in large part why it is in so much trouble now.

Dammit, Vic. Why do you think they keep cutting back your payments and withholding cost of living increases????

Do you refute this?

Ok lets get something straight, California cut back on My check, not SSA, As there are two items involved here the SSI portion($674.00) which has never gone down and the SSP part($156.40) from the state of California which has been frozen and reduced to the legal minimum by the CA legislature, SSA just administers the whole thing, Nothing more. When the SSA would hand out a COLA, the state under Ahnold would reduce the state portion by the same amount at 1st, later on this was done in 2009 regardless of a cola, As CA does not issue colas of it's own any more, $156.40 is all I'll get from them per month, As to the Federal SSI part, there maybe be a 3.34% cola coming in 2012(that could be $22.51 per month or so more than the $830.40 I'm getting now), it's too early yet to tell what the actual amount will be, But speculating is ok. Oh and SSI is not funded from the SSA fund, it comes from the federal budget the same budget where money for the military and other federal agencies get theirs from, both retirees and disabled people get SSI checks on the 1st of the month or before, never after as per the law. There are two Disability programs, One is SSDI which is funded from the SSA fund which I do not get a check from and there's SSI-D where I do get My money from. SSI checks are deposited into My checking account and I spend it on bills, food, rent and whatever. I don't smoke or take drugs, My Grandpa didn't raise My Dad back in the 1930's to do that and neither did My Dad for that matter, My Grandpa was a Police Chief and later on a City Councilman of Culver City CA, Grandpa was a real Bible thumper who isolated Himself from the rest of the family after 1929, Before 1929 My family owned the Garage where the police cars and fire engines were stored at, the fire trucks later had their own stations in 1927, My Uncle on My Dads side of the family was a Fire Chief of Culver City before 1927 I was told(by My older Brother, now deceased, I'd never doubt His word either), So far the page here hasn't been updated to be accurate, yet, but then I just talked to the Culver City Historical Society yesterday and pointed them to pics I posted back in 2000 of the Bobier Garage that was built in 1920 at Irving Place and Putnam(since renamed Washington Blvd), Yeah that's a dirt street in 1923. So My family has a History dating back to the earliest days of Culver City CA where the Wizard of OZ was filmed in 1939, Culver City was incorporated in 1917. Screenland, Back when I was Younger the studios there were MGM Studios and it looked like a walled fortress. My Grandpas old house is still around, Grandpa didn't lose the house in 1929. He still owned it in 1969 to the day He gave up and died, Loneliness I was told as His 2nd wife Grace had died in 1968. Grace I think is the lady on the left and Grandpa is on the right, the 3 in middle might be employees. I just never updated the caption.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Victor...
You are in denial of the simple fact that funds have been taken out of the SS trust and put into the general fund where they were spent for other purposes.
These funds have never been repaid to the SS fund, which is at least in large part why it is in so much trouble now.

Vic has drunk the koolaid. No point in talking to him. He doesn't get that when I was born my retirement age was 65. It is now 67. They stole at least two years from me. Two years of fun and two years of income, so it that four years?! Personally I think we the people should take that cash back from the congressional pension system!

Why is the 2036 date so important? It isn't the first year that FICA won't pay out SS checks. No, it is the year that the FICA short fall will be so great that there won't be enough cash in the general budget to cover the shortfall in SS checks. In short, the date the ponzi scheme explodes. The date when the shortfall exceeds all possible revenue.

Now Vic may be technically right that it isn't a ponzi scheme as the theft hasn't been from the newcomers to the first ones. The theft has been to a third party. So it technically may not be a ponzi scheme, but it sure looks exactly like one. And I'm going to keep calling it one.

Now if Congress had the guts to add a couple of percent to the FICA tax and not raise the payout, then there might be enough cash to pay out the benefits. If they also had the guts to put the trust fund into the name of each person contributing, so Congress can never ever again steal from it, so much the better.

Mark, as to Vic's check, it is more akin to welfare than SSI benefits. That because the money for it comes from the general fund, not the SSI trust fund. So Congress can do any thing it likes with that, including make it go away.

Finally as to what an individual should be able to do with their trust fund. I think they should be able to pick and choose how it is invested. As we know the majority of Americans are stupid about investing, the default choice should be throw it in a pot to be invested in t-bills, like it is today. In fact if 50% of everyone's had to be in this pot, so be it. The rest who are smart should be able to do with it what they want, just like any other trust fund.

---

Victor...
You are in denial of the simple fact that funds have been taken out of the SS trust and put into the general fund where they were spent for other purposes.
These funds have never been repaid to the SS fund, which is at least in large part why it is in so much trouble now.

Vic has drunk the koolaid. No point in talking to him. He doesn't get that when I was born my retirement age was 65. It is now 67. They stole at least two years from me. Two years of fun and two years of income, so it that four years?! Personally I think we the people should take that cash back from the congressional pension system!

Why is the 2036 date so important? It isn't the first year that FICA won't pay out SS checks. No, it is the year that the FICA short fall will be so great that there won't be enough cash in the general budget to cover the shortfall in SS checks. In short, the date the ponzi scheme explodes. The date when the shortfall exceeds all possible revenue.

Now Vic may be technically right that it isn't a ponzi scheme as the theft hasn't been from the newcomers to the first ones. The theft has been to a third party. So it technically may not be a ponzi scheme, but it sure looks exactly like one. And I'm going to keep calling it one.

Now if Congress had the guts to add a couple of percent to the FICA tax and not raise the payout, then there might be enough cash to pay out the benefits. If they also had the guts to put the trust fund into the name of each person contributing, so Congress can never ever again steal from it, so much the better.

Mark, as to Vic's check, it is more akin to welfare than SSI benefits. That because the money for it comes from the general fund, not the SSI trust fund. So Congress can do any thing it likes with that, including make it go away.

Finally as to what an individual should be able to do with their trust fund. I think they should be able to pick and choose how it is invested. As we know the majority of Americans are stupid about investing, the default choice should be throw it in a pot to be invested in t-bills, like it is today. In fact if 50% of everyone's had to be in this pot, so be it. The rest who are smart should be able to do with it what they want, just like any other trust fund.

If Congress did do away with Supplemental Security Income, It would be over the old persons lobby's dead body and that is independent of political party as Seniors also get SSI and SSI is Supplemental Security Income, SSI is not Social Security Retirement.

Besides if It were possible that SSI were repealed, what would You suggest the Disabled who get SSI do? Die or be folded into SSDI or maybe shoved into Prison w/o a trial? It is a valid program, not everyone went to a doctor a lot, As doctors aren't cheap, My Dad paid for eye exams for My Brother and Sister, My Brother had to pay for an eye exam for Me as Dad and Mom assumed I was their perfect child I was told, My Brother also got Me My 1st bicycle as Dad wrongly thought I'd never take care of it, I took excellent care of It, Of course Dad when We moved would leave stuff behind, like My Sky Blue Wagon in Tulare CA. I'd applied for SSDI, but since I have concentration problems due to a poorly performing thyroid(causes anxiety too) I missed a court date and so SSA said If I wanted SSDI I'd have to go back to work as the 5 year sliding window that covers the last 10 years that I'd worked slipped into the years when I couldn't work anymore and so as a result of a technicality even though I'd paid in the minimum 10 years I was deemed ineligible for SSDI(If I'd tried going to work I'd have had to start all over again), No makeup date or anything, they just cut one off totally, yet I was still qualified for SSI and in 2003 My disability as far as SSA is concerned started then as I was judged permanently disabled and unable to work, private industry said the same thing too. It was like someone turned a light switch on, Its like My disabilities never existed before 2003 at all. Before a determination Yer judged to be non disabled even if one is, afterwards it's made official, You either are judged disabled if one has real valid medical proof or not If one has a mere diagnosis to base a claim on, It doesn't hurt if one had access to good medical care and records for years, I didn't and the state doctors are borderline quacks.

No I have not drunk the Koolaid, No I don't like having the retirement age boosted to 67 from 65, Congress did that.

Oh and guess what the running joke at SSA is? It's SSI-D as It supplements nothing.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/113133/smaller-raises-for-seniors-smartmoney?mod=retire-planning
Yet another fact attesting to it being a ponzi scheme.

---

http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/113133/smaller-raises-for-seniors-smartmoney?mod=retire-planning
Yet another fact attesting to it being a ponzi scheme.

So what do Ya want to do? Privatizing is never going to happen and You know it, that's a fools errand. And since it's been constitutional since 1937, it is staying put.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Here's something that will further ruin our economy in my opinion.

i don't know to what extent this is true or how it will be implemented.



http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home

http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/113133/smaller-raises-for-seniors-smartmoney?mod=retire-planning
Yet another fact attesting to it being a ponzi scheme.

So what do Ya want to do?

Fully fund it. Treat it like a pension plan and fund it so it always has enough in it to pay out future all obligations. Then it isn't a ponzi scheme.

Privatizing is never going to happen and You know it, that's a fools errand. And since it's been constitutional since 1937, it is staying put.

Of course it is staying put, well until 2036 if they don't fund it, longer if they do.

Once it is fully funded there is no reason it can't be individualized. That is the only roadblock now.

---

Here is a way to fully fund it and limit the 'entitlement side' -- freeze the top end payouts, and eliminate the current top in pay in limitation.

Once it is fully funded there is no reason it can't be individualized. That is the only roadblock now.

---

I say lets do it.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Here is a way to fully fund it and limit the 'entitlement side' -- freeze the top end payouts, and eliminate the current top in pay in limitation.

Where are you going to get the other 90% of the money to fully fund it?

---

I think there should be a system-wide eval of who is on SSD and whether they actually should be receiving it or not. I have been exposed to a tremendous amount of fraud in the system and the moneys saved would be tremendous.

---

As a start, the existing funds that should be in the Social Security fund. (yeah I know, a lot of them have been used to pay for two unfunded wars).

Where are you going to get the other 90% of the money to fully fund it?

---

OK -- by whom -- how funded and who makes the determination. Not saying it shouldn't be done, but I suspect you ARE talking about the government doing this....

I think there should be a system-wide eval of who is on SSD and whether they actually should be receiving it or not. I have been exposed to a tremendous amount of fraud in the system and the moneys saved would be tremendous.

---

OK -- by whom -- how funded and who makes the determination. Not saying it shouldn't be done, but I suspect you ARE talking about the government doing this....

I think there should be a system-wide eval of who is on SSD and whether they actually should be receiving it or not. I have been exposed to a tremendous amount of fraud in the system and the moneys saved would be tremendous.

There is only so much that can be detected, even by audit. What are you proposing, every person on disability being sent to another doctor and PI sent to video tape a few of their days? The cost to do this may be more than the cost of the fraud.

---

I remember working for a major government contractor as a subcontract administrator and later on as a contract manager -- I remember my interactions with the DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Administration) -- there was a time when they were heavily under the gun to find 'fraud, waste and abuse' -- sometimes those folks were a tad clueless about cost and risk elements -- made for some interesting 'interactions' -- not clear that the Government's best interests were being improved.

There is only so much that can be detected, even by audit. What are you proposing, every person on disability being sent to another doctor and PI sent to video tape a few of their days? The cost to do this may be more than the cost of the fraud.

---

Well, with the TeaParty minority of 80+ Congressman ruling the Republican party, the economic recovery will now get to cope with a default -- which the Tea Party wants because they believe it won't hurt the economy, or if it does, it won't hurt the Tea Party.

I think the expenditures that happen (selectively) under a default are controlled via the executive branch (via the agencies with the funds). I wonder, if in order to meat obligations under a potential default, the agencies simply $0 dispense funds to all the no government Tea Party districts -- after all, that is what those representatives want, right?

Heck, that's a balanced budget -- 20% reduction of the budget right there.

---

It wouldn't surprise me now if the US bond rating is lowered next week.

Idiots.

---

Join the PACK!