Yet while all of these problems loom on the horizon, most Americans, including most people on the forum, are more interested in arguing over which party is more evil than the other. We have MAJOR problems right now and more LOOMING on the horizon and all the sheeple want to do is bicker, argue and attack others, over partisan bullshit. It makes me violently ill. It makes me ashamed to be an American. Most Americans are pathetic, brainwashed, bootlicking stooges.

I am NOT pathetic nor brainwashed.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Wrong, because at the same time they were having it taken from their paychecks to be "invested" in a trust fund, they were simultaneously voting (through their elected representatives) to have the money taken out of that trust fund and spent on them each year, so that when they retire, there is no actual money in the trust fund, it has been spent, and it was spent on government goods and services for them throughout their lives.

Consider it this way, suppose instead of that money being taxed from them as "SSI", their social security tax had been lower, taking only enough to cover the current expenses of the system. Then, the exact same amount they WOULD have paid in "SSI" taxes are instead paid as higher income taxes. The goods and services the government provided to them would be the same, the taxes they paid would be the same, and the net government fiscal balance would have been exactly the same. The ONLY difference is that because they simply called part of it the social security "surplus" they are pretending to be saving money for to be paid back to them in the future, but what they really have is nothing more than a pile of IOUs to be paid not by them, but by future generations.

Or how about this, let's deduct what from what they are "owed" for Social Security, the fair share of the current publicly held national debt attributable to the goods and services provided by the government to their generation?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Believe me I know that. You are not engaged in the never ending "your party is worse than my party" debates on this forum. While you criticize Obama, you also criticized Bush and obviously you realize that both parties suck. While you might get caught up in partisanship occasionally, as do I, neither of us are mouthpieces for one of the two ruling parties like many people here are. Not just here, but all across the US, it has become almost impossible to have civilized debate with someone from the "other" party.

How about we look at it how it was presented to the people, as a fund that we would pay into and get back. According to your logic, every time a pesion fund is raided by the union officials, it is the fault of the union member since they voted them into power. I guess no matter what our government does, it is our fault, since we voted them into power. What about people who don't vote, is it their fault too, since they didn't vote? What about people who always vote for independents, is it their fault as well?

While there is some truth to your claim, it is still more the government's fault for failing to uphold their part of the agreement, then people for simply voting for candidates. If we follow your logic, then no US elected official should ever have to be held responsible for any wrong doing while in office, as it would always be the voter's fault instead.

Anyone who has ever bothered to look beyond the rhetoric of politicians has always known that the Social Security "Trust Fund" is a sham, that all that money is being spent as it comes in. That people are just too damn stupid to pay attention to what's going on is their fault, and should not represent an obgligation on third parties who had absolutely no say in it (people who were not even born when these obligations were being made).

As for your analogy to the union officials raiding pension funds, one problem with it, when union officials raid pension funds they are breaking the law, and generally taking steps to hide what they are doing from being discovered. The federal government has published documentation of EXACTLY what it is has been doing for anyone and everyone to see. Willful ignorance is not a defense.

Every single thing I said is entirely true and accurate. It is not the government's "fault". The government has run Sociail Security exactly as it was set up to. Go read the original social security act, and you will see what was plain to see to anyone who wasn't stupid enough to take a bunch of politicians representation of things and actually read the actual law. Nothing in it created a binding obligation, and it was always set up to use the annual operating surplus (aka the "trust") to fund other contemporaneous government spending.

If your neighbor gets scamed by someone telling them that if they invest in their fund, that you (their neighbor) will eventually pay them lots of money, does that really create a moral or ethical obligation for you to make good on it because your neighbor fell for it?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

The government has a duty to fulfill it's obligations.

Comparing a neighbor to the government is not exactly A FAIR comparison.

Your logic is flawed.

but I am a bootlicking stooge!!


I hear you. j/k.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

No, it is spot on. Government has no money. The question is whether or not one generation has a moral obligation to transfer its income to the previous generation because the previous generation has said they will. Also, there was never an "obligation", as I have said repeatedly, it has been absolutely clear to anyone paying even a bit of attention since its inception that Social Security NEVER constituted a binding legal obligation, and for the reasons I have stated above, it certainly is not a moral one.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

mind showing me where it states that they WILL absolutely and posiively get this money ? (hint, its not in the law)

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Let's see, the preamble of the SSA..........

An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children

What does that mean to you?

FDR when signing the bill said.........

7. PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT SIGNING THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. AUGUST 14,1935

Today a hope of many years' standing is in large part fulfilled. The civilization of the past hundred years, with its startling industrial changes, has tended more and more to make life insecure. Young people have come to wonder what would be their lot when they came to old age. The man with a job has wondered how long the job would last.

This social security measure gives at least some protection to thirty millions of our citizens who will reap direct benefits through unemployment compensation, through old-age pensions and through increased services for the protection of children and the prevention of ill health.

We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.

Social Security Online - HISTORY

It means: "we don't trust you to save you're money, so we'll do it for you. Of course, we're even worse in that regard, so we'll just take your money, go bankrupt and pay a few assholes administration fees."

The money has been lost. The government squandered it. If they want payment, perhaps they can sue FDR's estate (or whoever received it) or other politicians who have voted in favor of the act/supported it. It sure as hell isn't my fault. I know that much. So, whoever pays (even if nobody doesn't), people like me certainly shouldn't be forced to bear the burden.

The GOP has been predicting the imminent demise of Social Security since it began.
It's still here, because for all those whose personal religious beliefs tell them that there is nothing the government can do better than the private sector, here's an eye opener, the government can do one a lot of things better than the private sector, and one that it does much better is write insurance.
Because insurance works best when everyone is covered, and the government can mandate coverage.
Social Security is a big insurance plan, it's like the opposite of Life insurance, it pays you if you live, it insures you if you get real old. And it does it very efficiently, compared to the private sector.

It's not a ponzi scheme, it's not a scam, it's finances are an open book and they are actuarially sound.
It is called a Ponzi scheme by those who have little to no understanding of finance, it's the rabble rousing right wing demagogues who rail against it, but it works remarkably well, and it is the gold standard of social insurance.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Anyone who supports either of the 2 ruling parties should be forced to bear the burden, as it is these people who screwed this nation. We shouldn't have a national debt, we shouldn't have an income tax, or a federal reserve, or NAFTA, GATT, or gun control, or membership in the UN, but we do, all because of American sheeple who allow the "establishment" to tell them what to think.

I have been paying into Social Security for almost 30 years. They fucking owe me and if I live long enough to collect, they better flipping pay me. If not, I will go to Congress and drool all over them, I might even change my diaper during House sessions.

What is all boils down to is this country was sold out by our politicians in 1913. Anyone who supports either of the 2 ruling parties is a brainwashed moron and should kill themselves for being so stupid.