Gas prices..
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gas prices..
> There is no doubt that it is a poor investment, but if a person has a
> spouse that has never worked, the max together is more like $2,400 a month
> coming from a single worker. Not a huge sum, but if you have no
debts, you can get by on that amount.>
Hell, that wouldn't pay some folks property taxes! Most retirees are going
to get less than HALF that, after paying the max 9into it all their lives.
The damn politicians who support this criminal rip off spin this thing as
some kind of salvation, but the real reason is the beauraucracy that
supports it is enormous, full of political appointments, patronage stooges,
***** & fools, who in turn get out the vote for the crooks of your choice.
Even AARP defends this crap.
> I don't even like to think how much the contributions from both me and my
> employers would be worth today at even 5% interest. I started paying into
> Social Security when I was 12 years old. It's like trying to comprehend
> the Universe. I get a headache with either one.>
That's exactly what the pols hope. They've made the damn thing so complex
it's virtually impossible for the average mook to grasp. Make no mistake,
you're getting hosed.
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gas prices..
> There is no doubt that it is a poor investment, but if a person has a
> spouse that has never worked, the max together is more like $2,400 a month
> coming from a single worker. Not a huge sum, but if you have no
debts, you can get by on that amount.>
Hell, that wouldn't pay some folks property taxes! Most retirees are going
to get less than HALF that, after paying the max 9into it all their lives.
The damn politicians who support this criminal rip off spin this thing as
some kind of salvation, but the real reason is the beauraucracy that
supports it is enormous, full of political appointments, patronage stooges,
***** & fools, who in turn get out the vote for the crooks of your choice.
Even AARP defends this crap.
> I don't even like to think how much the contributions from both me and my
> employers would be worth today at even 5% interest. I started paying into
> Social Security when I was 12 years old. It's like trying to comprehend
> the Universe. I get a headache with either one.>
That's exactly what the pols hope. They've made the damn thing so complex
it's virtually impossible for the average mook to grasp. Make no mistake,
you're getting hosed.
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gas prices..
> There is no doubt that it is a poor investment, but if a person has a
> spouse that has never worked, the max together is more like $2,400 a month
> coming from a single worker. Not a huge sum, but if you have no
debts, you can get by on that amount.>
Hell, that wouldn't pay some folks property taxes! Most retirees are going
to get less than HALF that, after paying the max 9into it all their lives.
The damn politicians who support this criminal rip off spin this thing as
some kind of salvation, but the real reason is the beauraucracy that
supports it is enormous, full of political appointments, patronage stooges,
***** & fools, who in turn get out the vote for the crooks of your choice.
Even AARP defends this crap.
> I don't even like to think how much the contributions from both me and my
> employers would be worth today at even 5% interest. I started paying into
> Social Security when I was 12 years old. It's like trying to comprehend
> the Universe. I get a headache with either one.>
That's exactly what the pols hope. They've made the damn thing so complex
it's virtually impossible for the average mook to grasp. Make no mistake,
you're getting hosed.
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gas prices..
You're talking about theSocial Security surplus loaned in Federal bonds to
the Federal Government:
* By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal securities.
In other words, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with
its surplus money is to loan it to the federal government. The federal
government is required by law to pay this money back to the Social Security
program with interest. [63] [64]
* According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will begin
to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the Social
Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has loaned to
the federal government. [65]
* According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls of
the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
government will pay back to the Social Security program.
from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to spend
in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be around 2037,
if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back those loans,
that's the real problem.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time were
> much higher than they are now.
>
> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it back.
>
> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases in
> FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal about
> 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your employer
> pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ you, it's
> figured as part of your income on your employers books. (Self - employed
> folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>
> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>
> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
> someone, probably our kids.
>
> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
> thing belong, too.
>
> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
> Don't get played, save your money!
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>
>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>
>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>
>> The
>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>Security.
>>>>
>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
the Federal Government:
* By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal securities.
In other words, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with
its surplus money is to loan it to the federal government. The federal
government is required by law to pay this money back to the Social Security
program with interest. [63] [64]
* According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will begin
to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the Social
Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has loaned to
the federal government. [65]
* According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls of
the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
government will pay back to the Social Security program.
from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to spend
in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be around 2037,
if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back those loans,
that's the real problem.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time were
> much higher than they are now.
>
> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it back.
>
> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases in
> FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal about
> 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your employer
> pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ you, it's
> figured as part of your income on your employers books. (Self - employed
> folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>
> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>
> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
> someone, probably our kids.
>
> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
> thing belong, too.
>
> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
> Don't get played, save your money!
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>
>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>
>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>
>> The
>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>Security.
>>>>
>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gas prices..
You're talking about theSocial Security surplus loaned in Federal bonds to
the Federal Government:
* By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal securities.
In other words, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with
its surplus money is to loan it to the federal government. The federal
government is required by law to pay this money back to the Social Security
program with interest. [63] [64]
* According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will begin
to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the Social
Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has loaned to
the federal government. [65]
* According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls of
the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
government will pay back to the Social Security program.
from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to spend
in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be around 2037,
if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back those loans,
that's the real problem.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time were
> much higher than they are now.
>
> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it back.
>
> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases in
> FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal about
> 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your employer
> pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ you, it's
> figured as part of your income on your employers books. (Self - employed
> folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>
> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>
> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
> someone, probably our kids.
>
> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
> thing belong, too.
>
> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
> Don't get played, save your money!
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>
>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>
>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>
>> The
>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>Security.
>>>>
>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
the Federal Government:
* By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal securities.
In other words, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with
its surplus money is to loan it to the federal government. The federal
government is required by law to pay this money back to the Social Security
program with interest. [63] [64]
* According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will begin
to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the Social
Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has loaned to
the federal government. [65]
* According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls of
the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
government will pay back to the Social Security program.
from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to spend
in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be around 2037,
if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back those loans,
that's the real problem.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time were
> much higher than they are now.
>
> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it back.
>
> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases in
> FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal about
> 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your employer
> pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ you, it's
> figured as part of your income on your employers books. (Self - employed
> folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>
> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>
> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
> someone, probably our kids.
>
> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
> thing belong, too.
>
> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
> Don't get played, save your money!
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>
>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>
>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>
>> The
>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>Security.
>>>>
>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gas prices..
You're talking about theSocial Security surplus loaned in Federal bonds to
the Federal Government:
* By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal securities.
In other words, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with
its surplus money is to loan it to the federal government. The federal
government is required by law to pay this money back to the Social Security
program with interest. [63] [64]
* According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will begin
to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the Social
Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has loaned to
the federal government. [65]
* According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls of
the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
government will pay back to the Social Security program.
from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to spend
in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be around 2037,
if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back those loans,
that's the real problem.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time were
> much higher than they are now.
>
> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it back.
>
> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases in
> FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal about
> 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your employer
> pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ you, it's
> figured as part of your income on your employers books. (Self - employed
> folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>
> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>
> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
> someone, probably our kids.
>
> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
> thing belong, too.
>
> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
> Don't get played, save your money!
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>
>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>
>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>
>> The
>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>Security.
>>>>
>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
the Federal Government:
* By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal securities.
In other words, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with
its surplus money is to loan it to the federal government. The federal
government is required by law to pay this money back to the Social Security
program with interest. [63] [64]
* According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will begin
to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the Social
Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has loaned to
the federal government. [65]
* According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls of
the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
government will pay back to the Social Security program.
from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to spend
in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be around 2037,
if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back those loans,
that's the real problem.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time were
> much higher than they are now.
>
> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it back.
>
> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases in
> FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal about
> 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your employer
> pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ you, it's
> figured as part of your income on your employers books. (Self - employed
> folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>
> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>
> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
> someone, probably our kids.
>
> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
> thing belong, too.
>
> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
> Don't get played, save your money!
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>
>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>
>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>
>> The
>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>Security.
>>>>
>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gas prices..
You're talking about theSocial Security surplus loaned in Federal bonds to
the Federal Government:
* By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal securities.
In other words, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with
its surplus money is to loan it to the federal government. The federal
government is required by law to pay this money back to the Social Security
program with interest. [63] [64]
* According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will begin
to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the Social
Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has loaned to
the federal government. [65]
* According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls of
the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
government will pay back to the Social Security program.
from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to spend
in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be around 2037,
if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back those loans,
that's the real problem.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time were
> much higher than they are now.
>
> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it back.
>
> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases in
> FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal about
> 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your employer
> pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ you, it's
> figured as part of your income on your employers books. (Self - employed
> folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>
> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>
> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
> someone, probably our kids.
>
> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
> thing belong, too.
>
> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
> Don't get played, save your money!
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>
>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>
>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>
>> The
>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>Security.
>>>>
>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
the Federal Government:
* By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal securities.
In other words, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with
its surplus money is to loan it to the federal government. The federal
government is required by law to pay this money back to the Social Security
program with interest. [63] [64]
* According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will begin
to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the Social
Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has loaned to
the federal government. [65]
* According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls of
the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
government will pay back to the Social Security program.
from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to spend
in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be around 2037,
if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back those loans,
that's the real problem.
"SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time were
> much higher than they are now.
>
> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it back.
>
> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases in
> FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal about
> 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your employer
> pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ you, it's
> figured as part of your income on your employers books. (Self - employed
> folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>
> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>
> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
> someone, probably our kids.
>
> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
> thing belong, too.
>
> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
> Don't get played, save your money!
>
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>
>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>
>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>
>> The
>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>Security.
>>>>
>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gas prices..
Wrong date I posted, 2015-2037.
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:Q4edncBOb_TnwrneRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> You're talking about theSocial Security surplus loaned in Federal bonds to
> the Federal Government:
>
> * By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal
> securities. In other words, the only thing that the Social Security
> program can do with its surplus money is to loan it to the federal
> government. The federal government is required by law to pay this money
> back to the Social Security program with interest. [63] [64]
>
>
>
> * According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will
> begin to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the
> Social Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has
> loaned to the federal government. [65]
>
>
>
> * According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls
> of the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
> government will pay back to the Social Security program.
>
>
> from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
>
> The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to
> spend in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be
> around 2037, if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back
> those loans, that's the real problem.
>
> "SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
> news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
>> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
>> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
>> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
>> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time
>> were much higher than they are now.
>>
>> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
>> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
>> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
>> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
>> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
>> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
>> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
>> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
>> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it
>> back.
>>
>> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases
>> in FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal
>> about 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your
>> employer pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ
>> you, it's figured as part of your income on your employers books.
>> (Self - employed folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>>
>> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
>> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
>> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
>> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
>> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
>> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>>
>> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
>> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
>> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
>> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
>> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
>> someone, probably our kids.
>>
>> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
>> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
>> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
>> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
>> thing belong, too.
>>
>> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
>> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
>> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
>> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
>> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
>> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
>> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
>> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
>> Don't get played, save your money!
>>
>>
>> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
>> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>>
>>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>>
>>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> The
>>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>>Security.
>>>>>
>>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:Q4edncBOb_TnwrneRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> You're talking about theSocial Security surplus loaned in Federal bonds to
> the Federal Government:
>
> * By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal
> securities. In other words, the only thing that the Social Security
> program can do with its surplus money is to loan it to the federal
> government. The federal government is required by law to pay this money
> back to the Social Security program with interest. [63] [64]
>
>
>
> * According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will
> begin to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the
> Social Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has
> loaned to the federal government. [65]
>
>
>
> * According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls
> of the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
> government will pay back to the Social Security program.
>
>
> from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
>
> The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to
> spend in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be
> around 2037, if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back
> those loans, that's the real problem.
>
> "SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
> news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
>> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
>> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
>> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
>> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time
>> were much higher than they are now.
>>
>> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
>> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
>> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
>> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
>> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
>> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
>> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
>> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
>> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it
>> back.
>>
>> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases
>> in FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal
>> about 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your
>> employer pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ
>> you, it's figured as part of your income on your employers books.
>> (Self - employed folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>>
>> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
>> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
>> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
>> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
>> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
>> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>>
>> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
>> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
>> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
>> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
>> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
>> someone, probably our kids.
>>
>> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
>> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
>> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
>> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
>> thing belong, too.
>>
>> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
>> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
>> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
>> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
>> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
>> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
>> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
>> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
>> Don't get played, save your money!
>>
>>
>> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
>> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>>
>>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>>
>>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> The
>>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>>Security.
>>>>>
>>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gas prices..
Wrong date I posted, 2015-2037.
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:Q4edncBOb_TnwrneRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> You're talking about theSocial Security surplus loaned in Federal bonds to
> the Federal Government:
>
> * By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal
> securities. In other words, the only thing that the Social Security
> program can do with its surplus money is to loan it to the federal
> government. The federal government is required by law to pay this money
> back to the Social Security program with interest. [63] [64]
>
>
>
> * According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will
> begin to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the
> Social Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has
> loaned to the federal government. [65]
>
>
>
> * According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls
> of the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
> government will pay back to the Social Security program.
>
>
> from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
>
> The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to
> spend in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be
> around 2037, if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back
> those loans, that's the real problem.
>
> "SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
> news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
>> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
>> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
>> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
>> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time
>> were much higher than they are now.
>>
>> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
>> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
>> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
>> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
>> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
>> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
>> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
>> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
>> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it
>> back.
>>
>> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases
>> in FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal
>> about 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your
>> employer pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ
>> you, it's figured as part of your income on your employers books.
>> (Self - employed folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>>
>> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
>> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
>> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
>> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
>> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
>> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>>
>> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
>> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
>> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
>> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
>> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
>> someone, probably our kids.
>>
>> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
>> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
>> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
>> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
>> thing belong, too.
>>
>> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
>> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
>> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
>> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
>> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
>> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
>> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
>> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
>> Don't get played, save your money!
>>
>>
>> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
>> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>>
>>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>>
>>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> The
>>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>>Security.
>>>>>
>>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:Q4edncBOb_TnwrneRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> You're talking about theSocial Security surplus loaned in Federal bonds to
> the Federal Government:
>
> * By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal
> securities. In other words, the only thing that the Social Security
> program can do with its surplus money is to loan it to the federal
> government. The federal government is required by law to pay this money
> back to the Social Security program with interest. [63] [64]
>
>
>
> * According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will
> begin to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the
> Social Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has
> loaned to the federal government. [65]
>
>
>
> * According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls
> of the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
> government will pay back to the Social Security program.
>
>
> from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
>
> The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to
> spend in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be
> around 2037, if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back
> those loans, that's the real problem.
>
> "SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
> news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
>> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
>> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
>> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
>> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time
>> were much higher than they are now.
>>
>> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
>> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
>> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
>> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
>> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
>> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
>> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
>> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
>> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it
>> back.
>>
>> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases
>> in FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal
>> about 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your
>> employer pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ
>> you, it's figured as part of your income on your employers books.
>> (Self - employed folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>>
>> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
>> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
>> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
>> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
>> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
>> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>>
>> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
>> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
>> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
>> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
>> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
>> someone, probably our kids.
>>
>> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
>> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
>> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
>> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
>> thing belong, too.
>>
>> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
>> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
>> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
>> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
>> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
>> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
>> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
>> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
>> Don't get played, save your money!
>>
>>
>> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
>> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>>
>>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>>
>>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> The
>>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>>Security.
>>>>>
>>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
#120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Gas prices..
Wrong date I posted, 2015-2037.
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:Q4edncBOb_TnwrneRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> You're talking about theSocial Security surplus loaned in Federal bonds to
> the Federal Government:
>
> * By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal
> securities. In other words, the only thing that the Social Security
> program can do with its surplus money is to loan it to the federal
> government. The federal government is required by law to pay this money
> back to the Social Security program with interest. [63] [64]
>
>
>
> * According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will
> begin to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the
> Social Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has
> loaned to the federal government. [65]
>
>
>
> * According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls
> of the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
> government will pay back to the Social Security program.
>
>
> from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
>
> The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to
> spend in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be
> around 2037, if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back
> those loans, that's the real problem.
>
> "SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
> news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
>> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
>> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
>> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
>> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time
>> were much higher than they are now.
>>
>> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
>> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
>> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
>> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
>> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
>> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
>> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
>> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
>> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it
>> back.
>>
>> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases
>> in FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal
>> about 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your
>> employer pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ
>> you, it's figured as part of your income on your employers books.
>> (Self - employed folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>>
>> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
>> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
>> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
>> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
>> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
>> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>>
>> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
>> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
>> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
>> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
>> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
>> someone, probably our kids.
>>
>> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
>> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
>> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
>> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
>> thing belong, too.
>>
>> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
>> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
>> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
>> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
>> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
>> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
>> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
>> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
>> Don't get played, save your money!
>>
>>
>> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
>> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>>
>>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>>
>>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> The
>>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>>Security.
>>>>>
>>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:Q4edncBOb_TnwrneRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> You're talking about theSocial Security surplus loaned in Federal bonds to
> the Federal Government:
>
> * By law, Social Security surpluses must be invested in federal
> securities. In other words, the only thing that the Social Security
> program can do with its surplus money is to loan it to the federal
> government. The federal government is required by law to pay this money
> back to the Social Security program with interest. [63] [64]
>
>
>
> * According to projections, in 2015, the Social Security program will
> begin to spend more money than it collects in taxes. At that point, the
> Social Security program will begin to collect on the money that it has
> loaned to the federal government. [65]
>
>
>
> * According to projections, between 2015 and 2037, the annual shortfalls
> of the Social Security program will be covered by the money that federal
> government will pay back to the Social Security program.
>
>
> from http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.htm
>
> The Social Security program will call in those loans when it starts to
> spend in benefits more than it takes in, and that is estimated to be
> around 2037, if memory serves. Of course, if the government can't pay back
> those loans, that's the real problem.
>
> "SoK66" <Nospam@SoK.net> wrote in message
> news:dg07c501l4d@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> Actually, Matt, he's right. In the run up to LBJs election in '64, Social
>> Security was running large surpluses, which were to that point saved and
>> invested strictly to pay for for future retiree benefits. The interest
>> earned on the surplus funds meant that at the time FICA taxes were
>> miniscule. When adjusted for inflation, benefits paid out at the time
>> were much higher than they are now.
>>
>> Costs of the Vietnam war, (which adjusted for inflation, dwarf what's
>> being paid out for the current conflict) and Johnson's "Great Society"
>> social programs were enormous. In order to avoid even greater tax
>> increases than they had already enacted, the Democrats (who had a total
>> lock on both houses of Congress, much greater than the Republicans have
>> now) passed legislation that allowed the Feds to use Social Security
>> surpluses to pay general expenses. This was done in in exchange for
>> "IOUs". In other words, the Feds were to pay back the Social Security
>> system in time to pay out benefit commitments. They've never paid it
>> back.
>>
>> As a result, to keep the system afloat there have been a HUGE increases
>> in FICA / Medicare taxation over the ensuing 40 years. They now equal
>> about 15% of every taxpayers income. Forget that charade about "your
>> employer pays 1/2". Your employer just counts it as an expense to employ
>> you, it's figured as part of your income on your employers books.
>> (Self - employed folks like me get the joy of paying it all.)
>>
>> As for taxation of benefits, in the late 80's the Democrats did pass
>> legislation to tax the Social Security benefits of so-called "wealthy
>> retireees", which turns out to be anyone retired who's not living in a
>> carboard box and eating dry dog food. He's also correct that Democrats
>> changed the law to permit paying out disability, Social Security, etc. to
>> illegal immigrants. Not sure it was Carter that signed off on it.
>>
>> IMHO, Republicans have been no better than Democrats on this issue,
>> they've more than happy to raid Social Security, and any time you hear a
>> politician talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund", or my favorite,
>> the "Lock Box" they're just plain lying. The system is flat broke, there
>> is NO trust fund, all there is is a bunch of debt that has to be paid by
>> someone, probably our kids.
>>
>> In actual fact, the "pay as you go" scheme used by the Government for
>> Social Security is known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and is illegal for everyone
>> else. If you did such a thing to run a business you'd end up in the
>> slammer. I figure that's where the politicians that have screwed this
>> thing belong, too.
>>
>> For you youngsters out there, Social Security is THE WORST "investment"
>> you'll ever make, and you have no choice in the matter. Do yourself a
>> favor, invest everything you can in IRAs, 401(k)s, etc. It will be the
>> only thing of substance you'll have when you retire. If you retire at 65
>> right now, no matter how much you've been taxed over the years, the most
>> you collect is about $1,600 a month. Had the same money been invested,
>> your returns would dwarf that, even adjusting for down markets, etc. Your
>> government is LYING TO YOU when it says Social Security is a "good deal".
>> Don't get played, save your money!
>>
>>
>> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
>> news:7cCdnb-X-KefDb7eRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>>> *You* are badly misinformed.
>>>
>>> http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
>>>
>>> "----" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
>>> news:vaarh1l85aev5bevvpcijenivdi0vh1872@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> The
>>>> reason we are in trouble now is that Lyndon Johnson took the S.S.
>>>> trust fund and put it into the general fund so that the liberals could
>>>> get their grubby hands on it. Now the money has been spent, and the
>>>> program has become a pay-as-you-go system. To add insult to injury,
>>>> not only was the trust fund stolen, but we now have to pay tax on the
>>>> benefits. We can thank Al Gore for that one when he was Senate
>>>> President. Oh, and let's not forget that Jimmy Carter elected to give
>>>> S.S. benefits to immigrants who never paid anything into the system.
>>>> Grumble, grumble.
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:34:19 GMT, jeff
>>>> <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No Bill. You are retired, so 15c of every dollar I make goes to you or
>>>>>some other welfare queen sucking off the public teat known as Social
>>>>>Security.
>>>>>
>>>>>L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>>> Except I'm retired, so know every dollar flipping hamburger you
>>>>>> make will go towards some screaming greenie bleeding heart liberal
>>>>>> that's being subsidized by you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>