• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

THINK THIS LADY IS PISSED?

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
15,497
Likes
29,041
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#1
THINK THIS LADY IS PISSED?

If you are over 50, you need to read this. If not, don't bother, you are already screwed.

Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared "Social Security " to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats. Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!

"Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight!!!

1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole (tit) for FIFTY YEARS.

2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).

3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and "your ilk" pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age, 67. NOW, you and your "shill commission" are proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.

5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now "you morons" propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because "you idiots" mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal our money from Medicare to pay the bills.

6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you "incompetent bastards" spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.
To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" to your incompetence.

Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU:

1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?

2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?

3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?

It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcase thieves who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers.

And for what? Votes and your job and retirement security at our expense, you lunk-headed, leech. That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic, political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it. And you can take that to the bank, you miserable son of a bitch.

P.S. And stop calling Social Security benefits "entitlements". WHAT AN INSULT!!!!

I have been paying in to the SS system for 45 years “It's my money”-give it back to me the way the system was designed and stop patting yourself on the back like you are being generous by doling out these monthly checks .
 

MrLucky

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
1,185
Likes
815
Location
Down the rabbit hole
#2
Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.
 

wallew

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,669
Likes
1,705
Location
Texas, USA, North America, Planet Earth
#3
COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF!!!

I'm four years older than she is!
 

Voodoo

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
988
Likes
1,149
Location
Deep Underground Bunker
#5
Social Security was never going to work. People who started receiving it soon after it was started got like 10x the amount out that they put in. This could never work but no one cared while the numbers were in their favor. I've paid in for 20 or so years and won't get a dime back. But I've never expected in back because I can manage to do math.
 

chris_is_here

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,323
Likes
1,760
Location
Loon Lake
#6
This esteemed solon was a member of BushCo, even delivered the eulogy for Bush Senior, one of the most evil men to ever hold office.
The esteemed senator also supported George HW Bush's decision to abandoned his campaign promise and support the federal tax increase.

Reality is more weird than anything people can make up in their minds.
 

tigerwillow1

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,022
Likes
1,723
#7
The response is pretty good, but it is reasonable, even necessary, to push the eligibility age up to track lifespan increases. Not doing so will in itself cause the system to self destruct.
 

Strawboss

Home Improvement Sales Trainee...
Site Mgr
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,656
Likes
14,359
#8
it is reasonable, even necessary, to push the eligibility age up to track lifespan increases. Not doing so will in itself cause the system to self destruct.
Extending the eligibility age only allows the ponzi scheme to perpetuate a bit longer before it is exposed for the sham that it is...although with the Fed going nuclear with the monetizations - I doubt such a detail will matter much in the final analysis...

Feds gonna destroy the USD.
Govt is gonna keep the COLA in line with stated inflation expectations (2%) even though the actual inflation will be orders of magnitude higher.
 

edsl48

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
2,975
Likes
5,803
#9
FDR put the program in knowing it would fail but after he was dead.
He got elected multiple times and true to course he is dead when the bills are coming home to be paid.
 

Aurumag

Ag mirror of truth Aurum purity of mind
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,309
Likes
13,223
Location
State of Jefferson
#10
The response is pretty good, but it is reasonable, even necessary, to push the eligibility age up to track lifespan increases. Not doing so will in itself cause the system to self destruct.
How can a Ponzi scheme ever be corrected?
Besides, SS is an income tax and not an entitlement program.
There is no individual account. The payroll deductions are dumped into the General Fund.
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
4,615
Likes
9,915
Location
Northern Arizona
#11
THINK THIS LADY IS PISSED?

If you are over 50, you need to read this. If not, don't bother, you are already screwed.

Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared "Social Security " to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats. Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!

"Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight!!!

1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole (tit) for FIFTY YEARS.

2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).

3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and "your ilk" pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age, 67. NOW, you and your "shill commission" are proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.

5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now "you morons" propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because "you idiots" mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal our money from Medicare to pay the bills.

6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you "incompetent bastards" spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.
To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" to your incompetence.

Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU:

1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?

2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?

3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?

It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcase thieves who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers.

And for what? Votes and your job and retirement security at our expense, you lunk-headed, leech. That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic, political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it. And you can take that to the bank, you miserable son of a bitch.

P.S. And stop calling Social Security benefits "entitlements". WHAT AN INSULT!!!!

I have been paying in to the SS system for 45 years “It's my money”-give it back to me the way the system was designed and stop patting yourself on the back like you are being generous by doling out these monthly checks .
Great rant, but just FYI Alan Simpson left the US senate in 1998.
..
.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
18,166
Likes
34,432
Location
ORYGUN
#12
Social Security was never going to work. People who started receiving it soon after it was started got like 10x the amount out that they put in. This could never work but no one cared while the numbers were in their favor. I've paid in for 20 or so years and won't get a dime back. But I've never expected in back because I can manage to do math.
WRONG ! It is not a great system, no government run ANYTHING is good. BUT inflation saved it's ass ! You will collect, but not enough to live as well as you do now.
If Lame Brain Johnson had NOT stolen OUR S.S. money & dumped it into the general fund, it would be one helluva lot richer/stronger today, due to inflation !
Us small business owners paid infinitely more $$$$$$$$$$ into the S.S. fund than anyone realizes. ALSO, most non-employers do not know that when they have paid the maximum on a job & change jobs, the amount they pay on the new job is REFUNDED on their income tax. The new employer, however, does NOT get that equivalent, nor any, "refund". SO, in the REAL world of dollars & nonsense, we the employers pay MORE into the SS fund that the/our employees, by more than equal.
I is not a ponzy scheme, simply because of inflation. The .gov collects money that is, for example, is 25 cents per dollar & pays out 50 years later with .02 cents per dollar, dollars ! Inflation is their friend, certainly not ours !
SS VALUE 2020.png
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
15,497
Likes
29,041
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#13
Feds gonna destroy the USD.
Govt is gonna keep the COLA in line with stated inflation expectations (2%) even though the actual inflation will be orders of magnitude higher.
Feds not destroying the dollar, the Fed is destroying the purchasing power of dollar denominated bank credit, not the U.S. Dollar.... the U.S. $ is not synonomous with dollar denominated bank credit, they can mostly be used alike, but it ends there. Dollar denominated bank credit is NOT legal tender...

The U.S. dollar is a one dollar COIN. A Federal Reserve Note is a redeemable legal tender substitute for a minted lawful one dollar coin (lawful money) This is complies with 12 USC § 411.

12 U.S. Code § 411

Federal Reserve notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

There is only $1.8 trillion in physical U.S. dollars in existence at this time.
There is $1.8 trillion in FRN legal tender claims in circulation that are obligations of the U.S. .gov

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MBCURRCIRW

The U.S. .govs exposure to dollars in circulation at this time is limited to $1.8 trillion & change.... The U.S. dollar is just fine and strong as ever...

Its the dollar denominated bank credit ($14+ trillions) that has been manufactured & LEVERAGED into tens of trillions in instant credit that has diminished PPP (purchasing power parity), not the US$.

To add insult to injury, the general price index is quoted in dollar denominated bank credit... which means that when we use our physical dollars to pay for goods & services priced in bank credit, we overpay by 90+% since the bank credit is worth so much less than our physical dollars.

Clearly the physical US$ & privately issued dollar denominated bank credit are not the same... clearly Greshams Law is in operation... clearly the physical US dollar coins & Fed Reserve Notes are very scarce when compared to the $14+ trillions of BASE issued nonleveraged bank credit that has created $75+ trillions in dollar denominated debt.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTBKCR

Total Credit Market Debt

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TCMDO#
 

Fatrat

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
4,487
Likes
4,479
#15
Great rant, but just FYI Alan Simpson left the US senate in 1998.
..
.
And started collecting a government pension which means he is still on the tit...
 

tigerwillow1

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,022
Likes
1,723
#16
Extending the eligibility age only allows the ponzi scheme to perpetuate a bit longer before it is exposed for the sham that it is
How can a Ponzi scheme ever be corrected?
I am being misinterpreted! I did not say raising the eligibility age could save the program. I said that NOT raising the age will cause the program to fail, making that point in the original rant not only invalid, but self-defeating for the purpose of the rant. I totally agree there are multiple other attributes of SS that will cause it to fail anyway. I was addressing only this one statement in the original rant.
 

Voodoo

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
988
Likes
1,149
Location
Deep Underground Bunker
#17
WRONG ! It is not a great system, no government run ANYTHING is good. BUT inflation saved it's ass ! You will collect, but not enough to live as well as you do now.
If Lame Brain Johnson had NOT stolen OUR S.S. money & dumped it into the general fund, it would be one helluva lot richer/stronger today, due to inflation !
Us small business owners paid infinitely more $$$$$$$$$$ into the S.S. fund than anyone realizes. ALSO, most non-employers do not know that when they have paid the maximum on a job & change jobs, the amount they pay on the new job is REFUNDED on their income tax. The new employer, however, does NOT get that equivalent, nor any, "refund". SO, in the REAL world of dollars & nonsense, we the employers pay MORE into the SS fund that the/our employees, by more than equal.
I is not a ponzy scheme, simply because of inflation. The .gov collects money that is, for example, is 25 cents per dollar & pays out 50 years later with .02 cents per dollar, dollars ! Inflation is their friend, certainly not ours !
View attachment 158581
Inflation helped the math. Otherwise it would have gone bust long ago.
 

Aurumag

Ag mirror of truth Aurum purity of mind
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,309
Likes
13,223
Location
State of Jefferson
#18
And started collecting a government pension which means he is still on the tit...
80% salary for life, including increases.

A lifelong pension benefit of $139,200.

All benefits are taxpayer-funded, and include 1st class medical coverage.

The fastest way to change/eliminate SS would be to put ALL the congress-critters on SS and Medicare.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
18,166
Likes
34,432
Location
ORYGUN
#19
80% salary for life, including increases.

A lifelong pension benefit of $139,200.

All benefits are taxpayer-funded, and include 1st class medical coverage.

The fastest way to change/eliminate SS would be to put ALL the congress-critters on SS and Medicare.
YUPPEROOOOO, I have said that for more years than I care to admit !
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
18,166
Likes
34,432
Location
ORYGUN
#20
80% salary for life, including increases.

A lifelong pension benefit of $139,200.

All benefits are taxpayer-funded, and include 1st class medical coverage.

The fastest way to change/eliminate SS would be to put ALL the congress-critters on SS and Medicare.
OOOOOOP's. I should have completed my usual rant on your subject matter.
AND put ALL federal, state, county & city, parasites on the tax dollar, on S.S. & Medicare. It then would work much better ! :finished::beer:
 

engineear

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
3,204
Likes
4,172
Location
North of the Wall
#21
Pay me what I've paid into it over the last 50 years, with compounded interest, in gold bullion, and everyone else...then close it down.
I will come after ALL of you bassturds...change my mind.
 

TomD

It blowed up, y'all
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,456
Likes
6,402
Location
Florida Panhandle
#22
From original post: "3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud."

Absolutely incorrect! SS payments have never been "safely tucked away". They have been turned over the the US Treasury general fund and spent immediately in return for Treasury Bonds. In other words, given to a bankrupt treasury in return for future promises to pay backed up by future tax receipts.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
15,497
Likes
29,041
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#23
From original post: "3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud."

Absolutely incorrect! SS payments have never been "safely tucked away". They have been turned over the the US Treasury general fund and spent immediately in return for Treasury Bonds. In other words, given to a bankrupt treasury in return for future promises to pay backed up by future tax receipts.
Congress has stuffed the Social Security Trust Fund with nonredeemable .gov bonds... SSI payments are legally a USC Title 18 Federal TAX contribution.... period, end of story! Always has been just a tax, nothing more, nothing less!
 

SilverBuyer

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
883
Likes
783
#24
Lived in the most prosperous era in the most prosperous country that mankind has ever seen. Still regularly ran massive deficits in spite of all this. Voted in more expansive governments every year. Has the gall to complain that the SS age is being increased. Sold out the country to China and let the mexicans flood the border leaving the job market in shambles for their children and grandchildren.

Gen Z will vote in the whoever the next bernie sanders is (that cortez woman maybe) 10-20 years from now putting the final nail in the coffin.
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
4,615
Likes
9,915
Location
Northern Arizona
#25
The response is pretty good, but it is reasonable, even necessary, to push the eligibility age up to track lifespan increases. Not doing so will in itself cause the system to self destruct.
That is the only solution that is practical and politically acceptable to the masses.

Over the next let's say 20 years, gradually increase the eligibility age until it reaches where 65 in 1934 is indexed (to where it will be in 20 years).
 

TomD

It blowed up, y'all
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,456
Likes
6,402
Location
Florida Panhandle
#26
"Over the next let's say 20 years, gradually increase the eligibility age until it reaches where 65 in 1934 is indexed (to where it will be in 20 years). '

HAW! Life expectancy in 1934 was 59. Since it's 79 now, you could start drawing SS at age 85.
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
4,615
Likes
9,915
Location
Northern Arizona
#27
"Over the next let's say 20 years, gradually increase the eligibility age until it reaches where 65 in 1934 is indexed (to where it will be in 20 years). '

HAW! Life expectancy in 1934 was 59. Since it's 79 now, you could start drawing SS at age 85.
Social(ist) (In)Security was never intended to be a retirement pension, but power-grubbing politicians wrongly turned it into one in order to buy votes and get re-elected.

I didn't mention that the FICA tax rate should also go back to what it was in 1934, next to nothing. People will be able to save more of their own hard-earned money, and provide for their own retirement.

People need to wean themselves off statist government dependence.
.
.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
18,166
Likes
34,432
Location
ORYGUN
#28
I didn't mention that the FICA tax rate should also go back to what it was in 1934, next to nothing. People will be able to save more of their own hard-earned money, and provide for their own retirement.
BUT, but, ZZZZZ, the .gov never created a tax that they couldn't grow bigger & bigger & turn into their "misappropriation funds" !!
 

EO 11110

CENSORSHIP KILLS
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
15,425
Likes
12,658
Location
clown world
#29
long article - just posted a few clips

https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

In the 1939 Amendments, a formal trust fund was established and a requirement was put in place for annual reports on the actuarial status of the fund. Specifically, the law provided: "There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 'Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund'. . . . The Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940, which securities and amount the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the Trust Fund, and, in addition, such amounts as may be appropriated to the Trust Fund as herein under provided." (Title II, Section 201a)

Both the 1935 and the 1939 laws specified three types of purchases that might be made: 1) securities on original issue at par; 2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price; and 3) via the issuance of "special obligation bonds" that could be issued only to the Social Security Trust Fund. These special obligation bonds were not to be marketable, although the other two forms of securities could be. The idea of special obligation bonds was not new nor unique to the Social Security program. Similar bonds were used during World War I and World War II, and it was in fact the Second Liberty Bond Act that was the law amended in 1939 to allow the Social Security program to make use of this type of government bond.

Consequently, over time the Social Security Trust Funds have included a mix of marketable and non-marketable Treasury securities. Over the years, the proportion has shifted heavily in favor of special obligation bonds as the main asset held by the Social Security Trust Funds. Prior to 1960, the Treasury's policy was to invest primarily in marketable securities, although this policy was not always followed. Since 1960, the policy has been to invest principally in special obligation bonds, unless the Managing Trustee of the funds (i.e., the Secretary of the Treasury) determines that investment in marketable securities would be "in the public interest." In fact, since 1980 no marketable securities have been added to the Trust Funds. (For a more detailed explanation see the Office of the Actuary's Actuarial Note #142.)

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
18,166
Likes
34,432
Location
ORYGUN
#30
EO 11110 - Get that FUGGGGGLY BITCH outa here !! :make happy::blew up::rotf::rotf::rotf:
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
18,166
Likes
34,432
Location
ORYGUN
#31
From the article:

Trust funds are not exclusive to the Social Security program, nor were they new with its passage. At the present time, there are somewhere in excess of 150 different trust funds managed by the federal government. At the time of the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 there were already in existence two major trust funds--those involved in the Civil Service Retirement System and the Government Life Insurance Fund established to insure World War I soldiers and their families. Trust funds have often been displayed separately in the federal budget, although their precise treatment has varied over time.
(For a detailed explanation of the federal budget process--with historical background--see the Senate Budget Committee's publication The Congressional Budget Process.)
From the beginning of the Social Security program its transactions were reported by the administration as a separate function in the budget. This is sometimes described in present usage by saying that the Social Security program was "off-budget." This was the budget representation of the Social Security program from its creation in 1935 until 1968.
"On-Budget"-
In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."
This 1968 change grew out of the recommendations of a presidential commission appointed by President Johnson in 1967, and known as the President's Commission on Budget Concepts. The concern of this Commission was not specifically with the Social Security Trust Funds, but rather it was an effort to rationalize what the Commission viewed as a confusing budget presentation. At that time, the federal budget consisted of three separate and inconsistent sets of measures, and often budget debates became bogged-down in arguments over which of the three to use. As an illustration of the problem, the projected fiscal 1968 budget was either in deficit by $2.1 billion, $4.3 billion, or $8.1 billion, depending upon which measure one chose to use. Consequently, the Commission's central recommendation was for a single, unified, measure of the federal budget--a measure in which every function and activity of government was added together to assess the government's fiscal position.
This change took effect for the first time in the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 1969, which President Johnson presented to Congress in January 1968. This change in accounting practices did not initially put the President's budget proposal into surplus--it was still projecting an $8 billion deficit. However, it is clear that the budget deficit would have been somewhat larger without this change (it is difficult to say how much larger because this change was mixed-in with the other legislative, budgetary and fiscal policies the President was urging Congress to adopt). In early 1969--just five days before leaving office--President Johnson sent his 1970 budget message to Congress, also using the revised accounting procedures. At this point, a year later than his initial estimate, he was projecting the budget for 1969 to be in a net balance of $2.4 billion. (The fiscal year 1969 began on January 1, 1969, even though the President had released his FY 1969 budget almost a year earlier.)

This was ANOTHER "SHELL GAME" by .gov to take funds & use them inappropriately (misappropriation of funds - THEFT).