Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Social Security Trust Fund has not been 'looted'. [View all]HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)77. The cap is raised nearly every year. The poster wasn't talking about raising the cap, but
eliminating it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
115 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
exactly, which is why forbes is going around telling you the looting has already taken place. it
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#2
Exactly! It hasn't been "looted" YET. But it WILL be if we allow there dingleberries to continue
TrollBuster9090
Dec 2012
#23
"This is the idea we have to prevent from taking root." = yes. i've already seen these ideas being
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#25
And Forbes said today on CSPAN they MUST QUIT operating this way! Won't work no more...
SugarShack
Dec 2012
#3
Absolutely correct...They WANT to make permanent the subsidizing of income taxes with payroll...
Faryn Balyncd
Dec 2012
#4
your hero al, he of the 'lockbox,' was there for the 1983 vote which raised SS taxes significantly
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#26
And if as much of our economy were in manufacturing as it was in 1950
customerserviceguy
Dec 2012
#92
of course i know birthrates dropped after the 60s, but it's irrelevant, and here's why:
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#37
it's not a pyramid scheme either. you are trying to claim that the 'fraud' lies with the structure
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#89
They're going to capital, as opposed to labor. Your solution is no solution, for the same
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#105
no, because most dems already voted for it. but about 20% of house dems & 30% of senate
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#63
Bills pass or fail based on the number of "yea" votes. Abstentions have the effect of "nay" votes.
JDPriestly
Dec 2012
#64
We can change course. A lot of them are still around and they need to get out
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#51
SS is not crumbling, far from it. It is the Fed Govt that crumbled, that spent
sabrina 1
Dec 2012
#14
funny that they've always paid them back then & continue to pay them back on a regular basis
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#28
the mortgage bubble was fraud. it has nothing to do with social security. the demographics
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#40
there is no your definition & my definition. there's *the* definition. buying houses to house the
HiPointDem
Jan 2013
#111
inflation-adjusted housing prices were basically flat 50's-90's, and basically flat from the turn of
HiPointDem
Jan 2013
#113
Your phrase "inflation-adjusted housing prices" is the weak link here
customerserviceguy
Jan 2013
#114
yes. that's the real problem. but i'd add that the ptb only want the solution that involves
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#78
Thanks for taking so much time to post all this great info. I'm on SSDI now due
Flatulo
Dec 2012
#82
Thanks for thanking me. Please talk to your friends and family about these issues.
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#107
Bookkeeping 101. The balance sheet shows a positive balance of $2.7 trillion in the SS column.
rhett o rick
Dec 2012
#15
yeah, people like forbes never tell you who 'looted' it. just that some nefarious but unnamed
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#18
Yes, that's exactly why Grandpa Simpson gets so testy at the 2:20 minute mark of this video...
TrollBuster9090
Dec 2012
#20
Why the hell should the money we borrowed from regular bond holders be taken more seriously than the
abelenkpe
Dec 2012
#24
I personally think that some of the people behind the 1983 Social security amendments, allan
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#29
Yep, it's in the same vein as the Norquist style "Starve the beast" ideas for destroying government.
TrollBuster9090
Dec 2012
#50
The original assertion by steve forbes? Gee, THAT guy doesn't have an agenda or anything...
calimary
Dec 2012
#30
leave it to you. how are we paying for war on 5 continents, then, green stamps? is congress
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#42
i presume we'll be cutting off the military contractors & bringing the troops home any day, then.
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#57
"become"? it's always been regressive in one aspect and progressive in another. eliminating the
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#41
because of the way income is structured. you've heard the stories about how the rich pay
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#45
that's the way income is structured. and that's why the original SS legislation made the pay-in
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#58
The cap is raised nearly every year. The poster wasn't talking about raising the cap, but
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#77
Precisely. But I still say that when Bush gave his super-tax-cuts to the super-rich and waged
JDPriestly
Dec 2012
#49
i agree that the SS surplus helped make those cuts politically viable. & yeah, i agree that's why
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#56
The claim about the looting of Social Security Trust fund is an excuse to justify privatizing Social
Gothmog
Dec 2012
#68
I believe the link I posted on the funding of OAS, which was not wikipedia.
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#101
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, proletariat motherfuckers...
MrMickeysMom
Dec 2012
#96
Big K&R. I wish I could commit this entire thread to memory. Great points made in support of the OP.
Dark n Stormy Knight
Dec 2012
#104