Another perspective on Social Security -- hadn't thought of this

Jack 99

New member
From www.boortz.com
+++++++++++++++
THIS WOULD BE A HUGE – HUGE CHANGE

When Owl Gore takes to the podium to address the nation tomorrow night you can be sure that he’s going to
say something about using our wonderful budget surplus to "shore up Social Security."

Someone needs to deliver the message to the American people that this is a HUGE change in the way
business is done in Washington. Not just a huge change, but a very dangerous change.

Let’s take this step-by-step.

First – how is Social Security funded now. One way – one source. Social Security taxes. ALL benefits are paid
from Social Security taxes. If the politicians want to raise benefits they have to find a way to control the costs
within the system. That could mean raising Social Security taxes, raising the eligibility age, or speeding up the
day that Social Security will run out of money.

OK – So Gore wants to use the budget surplus to shore up Social Security. The next step in our process of
understanding here is to figure out where the so-called budget surplus comes from. It comes from excess
income taxes collected from the American people, that’s where. Across the nation we have families where both
parents have to work to be able to both meet their families needs and to meet the demands of the IRS. That’s
where the surplus came from --- the incredible high rate of taxes being paid by American families --- more
particularly, those who are in the top 40 percent of income earners.

So … when Gore tells America that he wants to use the budget surplus to shore up Social Security he is telling
them that he wants to use income tax revenues to shore up the Social Security system. Income tax revenues.
Not Social Security Tax revenues --- income tax revenues.

This is a wholesale change in the way of doing business in Washington. Up to now Social Security has stood on
its own ….. now it’s going to be funded, to one extent or another, with income tax revenues?

Here is why the Democrats want to bring this about. Social Security has been one of the principal vote-buying
schemes of the Democratic Party for decades. No dummies, these Democrats. They know that the largest
identifiable voting group out there is America’s senior citizens … and they vote! And when they vote Social
Security is at the absolute TOP of their electoral agenda. Time after time we’ve seen benefit increases
proposed just before major national elections. In virtually EVERY election of the past 30 years --- usually at the
last minute --- Democrats have issued press releases with dire warnings of some evil Republican plot to "gut",
"slash", "cut", or "destroy" Social Security.

The Democrats, though, have faced one small roadblock in their quest to utilize Social Security as an effective
vote-buying program. Limited funds! The Democrats have been constrained to fitting all of their benefit
increases into the structure of the Social Security tax system! Raising Social Security taxes or setting back the
eligibility age to cover increased costs and benefits is a tricky tightrope to walk. If the Democrats could just fund
their Social Security promises from some source other than Social Security taxes --- more and bigger promises
could be made and more and more votes could be bought!

Well ---- here’s the solution! The budget surplus! Use the budget surplus! You can cast any effort to give these
surplus taxes back to the people who actually earned it as "welfare for the rich." Make the high-achievers look
evil and greedy for even suggesting that they should get some of their money back. Then … use that money to
buy more votes through Social Security!

More benefits? No problem! We’ll get the money through income taxes!

Expanded eligibility? No problem! All we have to do is keep the evil Republicans from lowering those income
tax rates on the rich and we’ll have the money to do whatever we want!

Think about it, folks. If the Democrats succeed with their plans to start funding Social Security with general tax
revenues – we’ll never see a tax cut. Never.

They’re working to take a good vote-buying scheme and turn it into a stupendous vote-buying scheme. Quite a
plan.
 
The only way we are ever going to get a handle on this problem is for the taxpayers to say enough. Say enough by not paying any more taxes. The government can not run without revenue. It will never happen as to many people are afraid of the IRS and with good reason.

When the government fear the people there is liberty, when the people fear government there is tyranny..... do you fear the IRS, the BATF or other alphabet soups?




------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
I love it when Owl Gore talks about shoring up the Socialist Security TRUST FUND. As if there is some magical pile of money somewhere that the geesers have been paying into, gaining interest all these years. What a joke! I get so sick of listening to people talk about my money as if they worked for it. Leave me alone. I'll take care of mine and you should take care of yours. Is anybody under thirty years of age actually counting on Socialist Security? I doubt it. I'm not. This is another example of people looking to the Government to be their daddy. IMHO The government should only care for the disabled and veterans. And Families should do fifty times as much as the government. But I'm dreaming about families that care. And others are dreaming about governments that care.

Oh yes when the general funds go into socialist security it's all over. Try lowering or abolishing Socialist security taxes now. Just wait when there are so many geesers demanding more and more of your money. It's a EVIL thing when I can vote to take your money,(based on envy and greed, or even need) under the threat of death or prison. Our culture is dying, and will eventually consume itself. IMO, If things don't get much better, it may be time to move offshore. USGOV - Leave us alone!!!!
 
How about this radical idea?

Eliminate social security. Give everyone back all the money they and their employers have paid.

Everone save ever how much as they want for their later years and invest it in any manner they choose.

Those that don't plan ahead live off the charity of those who did.

RKBA!
 
It's my understanding that the surplus is coming from excess Social Security tax revenues.

Yes, please end this damn program! Give me my privacy back!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by westex:
How about this radical idea?

Eliminate social security. Give everyone back all the money they and their employers have paid.

Everone save ever how much as they want for their later years and invest it in any manner they choose.

Those that don't plan ahead live off the charity of those who did.

RKBA!
[/quote]

------------------------------------------
I agree about eliminating the government control of social security. The idea maintaining the quality of life in our aging citizens is a noble one. This can still be done but through the private sector. I do not have a problem with being charitable and supporting the aged. If you do then you do not realize that your life insurance premiums are not only going toward your care but also the care of others. The insurance company is betting that your care will not be expensive or long-term and that your premiums will pay for that care, the care of others, pay for the administration of the policy, and make a profit. This is amazing. How come the government cannot see this but continues to run a deficit? Do not vote Democratic. This is the first step to your wish.
 
Remeber, it ain't only the aged who receive SS. I spoke to a friend tonight whose friend was recently killed in an auto accident. The friend is divorced and has a child of 2yo. After proving marriage, custody, etc. by the father, the child will be getting $800.00 per month from SS. The mother was a STUDENT and has not really started working in the real world.

'Nuff said?

Damn. Just damn.
 
Well, actually, I see this article as being a little misleading.

For years, the excess of social security taxes over benefits paid has reduced the federal budget deficit. That's right. So, if the fed's actually spent $400 billion more than they took in, but the excess in social security taxes was $100 billion, then they would report a $300 billion deficit. They've spent the excess social security funds every year. As was noted above, they can't give anything back ... they don't have it!

So, the fed's have been borrowing from the social security system for years. And, those birds are coming home to roost. It is natural, and based upon the way they've run it, logical that any true budget surplus (without considering social security) could and would be used to 'repay' social security.


Bottom line? It has always been a Ponzi scheme, and always worked as long as we had an expanding economy and growing population. Someday, things will slow down, and retirees will increase enough to cause the entire house of cards to fall.

IMHO, privatization, in one form or another, is the only way to fix this mess. And, when they (Congress / the fed's) finally hurt everyone they're going to hurt, well .... the politicians that made the really big mistakes will be either dead, or out of office.

All you guys so enamored of 'universal' / socialized health care should take a lesson here. There's no free lunch friends. Socialism doesn't work ... eventually, someone must pay the piper.

Live and let live. Regards from AZ
 
Over here in Austria (where health care and social security are socialized), it is estimated that somewhere between 2010 and 2020 there will be the same number of actively employed and OAP - that's right, one OAP for every social security taxpayer. This ratio is expected to deteriorate further, i.e. more than one OAP per taxpayer.

Consider further that the current *maximum* SS tax converts to roughly US$ 500 per month, which is about the same as the current
*minimum* pension, and you can clearly see that income tax is already a source of funding for pensions here.

------------------
I see no elephant in my cellar. If there were an elephant in my cellar, I would surely see it. Therefore, there is no elephant in my cellar.

http://www.ety.com/tell/why.html
 
Listen to gunter - in every other country "Social Security" means a handout not savings.

And why would >50% of the population (like in Austria) vote to terminate their income? True, if they weren't taxed to hell they may have some savings; but now anyone screwed by socialism ends up with a vested interest in it - and it cannot be removed democratically.

Socialism can exist as an eternal debt owed to the previous generation.


Battler.
 
Back
Top