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
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]ProSense
(116,464 posts)69. A lot of people bought into that lie.
It was as transparent as ever: The claim that Social Security was depleted was to create the impression of a flawed and unsustainable program, one that needed to be rescued by the free market.
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