There Is No Social Security Trust Fund

[KazooSkinsFan]

Here is the reality of social security
- There is no social security "trust fund"
- Social and Medicare security are primarily welfare programs
- Your payments are taxes, not investments
- You pay the entire 15%+ or so tax, your employer pays nothing
- The Social Security program "subsidizes" moving American jobs overseas
- Social Security taxes are paid disproportionately by the poor
- Social Security and Medicare undermine personal responsibility and liberty more then any other government program
- Medicare increases the cost and reduces the quality of medical care in the US
- The greatest benefactors of Social Security and Medicare are politicians

There is no social security "trust fund"

One of the irrelevancies told by politicians of both parties, including so called "conservatives" like George Bush is that we have a "social security trust fund" and then they project when it will "run out." In reality, there is no trust fund. Social Security taxes are subtracted from budget deficits. If the budget deficit is say $600 billion and the social security surplus were $200 billion, the government tells us the deficit was $400 billion. However, think about that the national debt actually grew by $600 billion, not $400 billion. The Clinton administration used this to claim surpluses that didn't exist. In reality, the national debt went up every year Bill Clinton was President.

A common slight of hand used by the Left is to claim the social security administration owns T-Bills and T-Bills are secure. So think about the reality of that. Social Security is just the US government just like the rest of the budget. So the government is issuing debt to itself to cover deficit spending while subtracting the debt it issued itself from the deficit spending. That the US government is secure is true, at least in mankind's current ability to make it so. But there is no money, the government spent it. It recognized no deficit spending. So the "trust fund" is just the promise of future tax payers to make good on debt that was never counted as debt. Whether they can or not doesn't make it a trust fund. Assets make it a trust fund and there are no assets.

Social and Medicare security are primarily welfare programs. Your payments are taxes, not investments
Your benefits are cut off at something like 40K a year. You continue to pay taxes for nothing beyond that. In addition, unlike any real pension program increases are tiny and you are taxed both on the wages you paid to social security and most of the benefits. Your returns for decades of investment are a pittance. The reality is the tiny return you get is like someone taking your wallet with $100 and giving you back $20. Were you robbed? Yes. And by the same token most of what you paid for Social Security were just taxes and the money was redistributed as welfare.

You pay the entire 15%+ or so tax, your employer pays nothing
When your employer hires you, they are well aware of the total costs. When I was in GE management we referred to this as "all in" cost. The company looks at the total cost of hiring you, not just what they pay you. Unless you believe that companies are too dumb to realize the taxes they pay for hiring you you have to recognize they consider this part of your salary and could pay you more (in a competitive marketplace) if they didn't.

The Social Security program "subsidizes" moving American jobs overseas
See the point above. In addition to paying lower wages by moving overseas, companies don't have to pay social security taxes, bam, a 15%+ year over year subsidy to move overseas. Now I realize you pay the money, not your company, but you need the money to pay the taxes. That cost is gone if they move overseas unless they move to a country that is worse, which they generally don't unless it's not for cost they are moving. In reality you and the company pay for it because it's economic waste.

Social Security taxes are paid disproportionately by the poor
Social Security taxes are ultimately not paid by the employee or the company, they are built into the price of products. Who spends a larger portion of their income? So who pays a higher portion of their income on paying employee and company portions of social security taxes?


Social Security and Medicare undermine personal responsibility and liberty more then any other government program
What programs make every American dependent on government then these two programs? It is a key objective of socialism to make everyone get a check from government. Amazingly for a small government check people will pay incredible taxes and even more baked into the price of products. It's staggering.

Medicare increases the cost and reduces the quality of medical care in the US
One word, inefficiency. Any time you have irrational government rules and control, you create entire markets of inefficiency chasers and divide cost from revenue. Every time someone using a government Medicare handout goes to the doctor they are manipulating the health markets and driving up total cost.

The greatest benefactors of Social Security and Medicare are politicians
The economy are hugely hurt. Who benefits? Politicians who want you dependent on them.

[GSPODS]

It's not Social.
It's not Security.
It's taxation without representation.
The government is lying to us and screwing us. This is not a revelation.
Do you have a solution?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Do you have a solution?

Um....eliminate them?

[GSPODS]

Do you have a solution?

Um....eliminate them?

Who or what is the "them" you suggest be eliminated? The programs? The government?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Do you have a solution?

Um....eliminate them?

Who or what is the "them" you suggest be eliminated? The programs? The government?

I'm thinking the subject, Social Security and Medicare. So out of curiosity, when you asked if I had a solution, what did you mean a solution "to" exactly? Again I thought it referred to the subject.

[GSPODS]

Do you have a solution?

Um....eliminate them?

Who or what is the "them" you suggest be eliminated? The programs? The government?

I'm thinking the subject, Social Security and Medicare. So out of curiosity, when you asked if I had a solution, what did you mean a solution "to" exactly? Again I thought it referred to the subject.

"To" the government lying to us about the existence of a social security trust fund. That was the subject of your thread. Your inference that I managed to stay on the topic was correct.

So, you believe that elimination of the programs would change anything? The government would simply invent new programs with different names and different claimed functions and the same purpose of screwing us by way of taxation without representation.

I'd say elimination of the people in government and of every ridiculous law and way to spend money invented since 1789 would be one way to fix the problem. Fewer laws means less government power and less government interference.

[Countertrey]

Nothing changes until Constitutional constructionists have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, a subtantial majority in the House, The White house, and 5 solid seats on the Supreme Court.

Unless, of course, those outside of the Capital take it into their own hands, as envisioned by Jefferson.

[GSPODS]

Nothing changes until Constitutional constructionists have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, a subtantial majority in the House, The White house, and 5 solid seats on the Supreme Court.

Unless, of course, those outside of the Capital take it into their own hands, as envisioned by Jefferson.

If we had elected Jefferson, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
We "elected" Bush. I use that term loosely in this context.
We could stop electing "business as usual" politicians by refusing to vote for someone just to vote for anyone. Politicians rely on the average American voting for someone just to use their right to vote.
Even going so far as to elect non-politicians to fill political positions would not repair the damage done by the John McCain / Hillary Clinton "We have experience" (Yes, at screwing things up) political factions.
But the same politicians who spent the last 30 years screwing the country up as Congresspeople and Senators now want our vote for President.
We The People are stupid and deserve what we get if we vote any of these candidates into the White House.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Nothing changes until Constitutional constructionists have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, a subtantial majority in the House, The White house, and 5 solid seats on the Supreme Court.

Unless, of course, those outside of the Capital take it into their own hands, as envisioned by Jefferson.

If we had elected Jefferson, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
We "elected" Bush. I use that term loosely in this context.
We could stop electing "business as usual" politicians by refusing to vote for someone just to vote for anyone. Politicians rely on the average American voting for someone just to use their right to vote.
Even going so far as to elect non-politicians to fill political positions would not repair the damage done by the John McCain / Hillary Clinton "We have experience" (Yes, at screwing things up) political factions.
But the same politicians who spent the last 30 years screwing the country up as Congresspeople and Senators now want our vote for President.
We The People are stupid and deserve what we get if we vote any of these candidates into the White House.

Is there actually a point to any of this? What do you really want to do?

[GSPODS]

Nothing changes until Constitutional constructionists have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, a subtantial majority in the House, The White house, and 5 solid seats on the Supreme Court.

Unless, of course, those outside of the Capital take it into their own hands, as envisioned by Jefferson.

If we had elected Jefferson, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
We "elected" Bush. I use that term loosely in this context.
We could stop electing "business as usual" politicians by refusing to vote for someone just to vote for anyone. Politicians rely on the average American voting for someone just to use their right to vote.
Even going so far as to elect non-politicians to fill political positions would not repair the damage done by the John McCain / Hillary Clinton "We have experience" (Yes, at screwing things up) political factions.
But the same politicians who spent the last 30 years screwing the country up as Congresspeople and Senators now want our vote for President.
We The People are stupid and deserve what we get if we vote any of these candidates into the White House.

Is there actually a point to any of this? What do you really want to do?

I thought I stated my plan of action clearly.
Strike every federal abuse of Constitutional Law written since 1789 from the United States Code.
Remove every career politician from office.
Elect only non-politicians to office with a one term limit.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I thought I stated my plan of action clearly.
Strike every federal abuse of Constitutional Law written since 1789 from the United States Code.
Remove every career politician from office.
Elect only non-politicians to office with a one term limit.

I meant more pragmatic then pie in the sky. So why do you support Obama? In what way does he embody this philosophy? The guy hasn't met a government atrocity he wouldn't put is full weight behind.

[GSPODS]

I thought I stated my plan of action clearly.
Strike every federal abuse of Constitutional Law written since 1789 from the United States Code.
Remove every career politician from office.
Elect only non-politicians to office with a one term limit.

I meant more pragmatic then pie in the sky. So why do you support Obama? In what way does he embody this philosophy? The guy hasn't met a government atrocity he wouldn't put is full weight behind.

When and where did I say anything about supporting Obama? Beacuse I pointed out that the Clinton's and the McCain's being in politics for the last 30 years created the problems they claim they can fix, you assume I back Barack Obama by default? Well, if he's against Clinton and McCain he must be for Obama?

Pragmatic? How about this? The President, Congress and a suicide bomber walk into a State Of The Union address ... no one walks out.

Nothing about American government is pragmatic. Why would or should the elimination of power be any more pragmatic than the usurpation of power was?

We're doing it this way. You don't get a vote. You have no say. The issue won't be on any ballot at any time. The opinion of The People is not wanted. Pragmatic American government in action.

[Countertrey]

Elect only non-politicians to office with a one term limit.

Unfortunately, the electorate would fall for every populist stance in the election. That would also be a disaster, with the ultimate result being a major revolt.

Yes, I'm saying the electorate is stupid. Witness the support for "change", while having no idea what that means.

Ron Paul stands for the kind of government that many of us suggest, and he has a track record to back it up. How well did he do???

The electorate tends to get what they deserve.

[KazooSkinsFan]

[ When and where did I say anything about supporting Obama? Beacuse I pointed out that the Clinton's and the McCain's being in politics for the last 30 years created the problems they claim they can fix, you assume I back Barack Obama by default? Well, if he's against Clinton and McCain he must be for Obama?

So what do you think of Obama?

Pragmatic? How about this? The President, Congress and a suicide bomber walk into a State Of The Union address ... no one walks out.

It's the pointlessness of your posts. You make grandiose statements about being beyond "mainstream" libertarian to anarchist and about blowing up the politicians. Then you mirror liberal attitudes about conservatives like Bush and Rush and say nothing actually constructive or realistic about any plan of action.

What do you actually want to do in the here and now? What policies do you think someone who loves this country and believes in it's principles of freedom adopt to restore us to the path of liberty? Should we just as you seem to propose talk about blowing up the government and vote for Obama who has no limit to the power he wants to give it, or himself as it's head?

[GSPODS]

I think Obama is too conversation-oriented, and not action-oriented enough.
I think Obama lacks the respect of both houses of Congress, which are filled with ancient "My Daddy" politicians.
I think there are still enough people in this country who are prejudiced to safely assume Obama would constantly be in personal danger.

I think the only pragmatic solution to politics is to eliminate representatives and to have an actual Democracy, where each and every issue is left to the will of the People by direct vote.

Having two Senators and a handful of Representatives who presume to know how I feel about an issue is the problem. They don't know how I feel. They don't care how I feel. That is not representation.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I think Obama is too conversation-oriented, and not action-oriented enough.
I think Obama lacks the respect of both houses of Congress, which are filled with ancient "My Daddy" politicians.
I think there are still enough people in this country who are prejudiced to safely assume Obama would constantly be in personal danger.

Wow, so you can't come up with any criticism of his policies? The guy who proposes endless government power over oil, mortgage etc? You being the extreme libertarian border line anarchist can only personally criticize an extreme socialist for not being "action oriented" enough? Do you still deny you support him? If so, why?

[GSPODS]

I think Obama is too conversation-oriented, and not action-oriented enough.
I think Obama lacks the respect of both houses of Congress, which are filled with ancient "My Daddy" politicians.
I think there are still enough people in this country who are prejudiced to safely assume Obama would constantly be in personal danger.

Wow, so you can't come up with any criticism of his policies? The guy who proposes endless government power over oil, mortgage etc? You being the extreme libertarian border line anarchist can only personally criticize an extreme socialist for not being "action oriented" enough? Do you still deny you support him? If so, why?

I don't support any of the Presidential Candidates. None of the candidates have a viable solution to any of the major issues We The People consider critical. War On Terror? Strike One. The solution was not to vote for the war and then to claim to want to end the war. One for McCain. At least he has the same position he always had. Economy? Strike Two. Having the Fed cut interest rates to lenders doesn't put money into the hands of the American citizens who most need it. What would improve the economy is giving everyone a clean slate on their personal debts. Then we could all rush out and grab those reduced interest rate loans that they think are solving the problem. Education? Strike Three. Dumping money into lump testing programs solves nothing. Education should be free to anyone who wants an education. Education is not an enterprise. Education is vital to our remaining the United States Of America. Free enterprise? Why do I need a patent, a trademark, a business license, a tax collection license, et. al. if I want to sell douchebags from the comfort of my own home?

None of these candidates has the first clue how to fix anything. These candidates are the same people who created all of these issues. We know they can all screw things up. They all have a track record to prove it. We know they can all change positions on issues with the political wind. None of them have a track record of having gone against their own party when someone threw a ridiculously nonsensical and overall harmful bill in their collective faces. They only take a stand when the "other party" wants something accomplished. Then it's an automatic "No, and hell no."

Well, it's my turn to say "No, and Hell No" to these candidates.
I'd rather have an empty Oval Office.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I think Obama is too conversation-oriented, and not action-oriented enough.
I think Obama lacks the respect of both houses of Congress, which are filled with ancient "My Daddy" politicians.
I think there are still enough people in this country who are prejudiced to safely assume Obama would constantly be in personal danger.

Wow, so you can't come up with any criticism of his policies? The guy who proposes endless government power over oil, mortgage etc? You being the extreme libertarian border line anarchist can only personally criticize an extreme socialist for not being "action oriented" enough? Do you still deny you support him? If so, why?

I don't support any of the Presidential Candidates. None of the candidates have a viable solution to any of the major issues We The People consider critical. War On Terror? Strike One. The solution was not to vote for the war and then to claim to want to end the war. One for McCain. At least he has the same position he always had. Economy? Strike Two. Having the Fed cut interest rates to lenders doesn't put money into the hands of the American citizens who most need it. What would improve the economy is giving everyone a clean slate on their personal debts. Then we could all rush out and grab those reduced interest rate loans that they think are solving the problem. Education? Strike Three. Dumping money into lump testing programs solves nothing. Education should be free to anyone who wants an education. Education is not an enterprise. Education is vital to our remaining the United States Of America. Free enterprise? Why do I need a patent, a trademark, a business license, a tax collection license, et. al. if I want to sell douchebags from the comfort of my own home?

None of these candidates has the first clue how to fix anything. These candidates are the same people who created all of these issues. We know they can all screw things up. They all have a track record to prove it. We know they can all change positions on issues with the political wind. None of them have a track record of having gone against their own party when someone threw a ridiculously nonsensical and overall harmful bill in their collective faces. They only take a stand when the "other party" wants something accomplished. Then it's an automatic "No, and hell no."

Well, it's my turn to say "No, and Hell No" to these candidates.
I'd rather have an empty Oval Office.

OK, but WHY don't you support Obama specifically? I realize you're a border line anarchist and all, you've mentioned that, but you have specifically criticized Hillary and McCain? What do you have specifically against Obama's views besides he's not active enough in pushing his socialist agenda, you're only criticism of him personally so far. If he pushes socialism harder, how does that achieve your anarchist objectives? I'm not following the logic. Walk me through it.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Well, it's my turn to say "No, and Hell No" to these candidates. I'd rather have an empty Oval Office.

OK, but the question is WHY don't you support Obama specifically? I realize you're a border line anarchist and all, you've mentioned that, but you have specifically criticized Hillary and McCain. What do you have specifically against Obama's views besides he's not active enough in pushing his socialist agenda, you're only criticism of him personally so far. I'm also not getting, If he pushes socialism harder, how does that achieve your anarchist objectives? I'm not following the logic. Walk me through it.

[GSPODS]

Well, it's my turn to say "No, and Hell No" to these candidates. I'd rather have an empty Oval Office.

OK, but the question is WHY don't you support Obama specifically? I realize you're a border line anarchist and all, you've mentioned that, but you have specifically criticized Hillary and McCain. What do you have specifically against Obama's views besides he's not active enough in pushing his socialist agenda, you're only criticism of him personally so far. I'm also not getting, If he pushes socialism harder, how does that achieve your anarchist objectives? I'm not following the logic. Walk me through it.

Obama's entire campaign platform is built on the further centralization of government. I am in favor of de-centralization of government. You know what I am referring to, so let's skip the word games.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You know what I am referring to, so let's skip the word games.

Of course I know what you're "referring to." The reason I'm challenging you is that's all you do, refer. I have a hard time believing your stated views are sincere since you keep referring to smaller government, and yet I have seen no specific argument in any way that demonstrates the belief other then general statements. I keep saying this, I'm not sure how from that you can say I'm playing "word games." I'm asking you to back up your views with actual real world arguments rather then "referring" to smaller, Constructionist government.

And again with Obama you make a vague statement about his wanting "central" government. But why would a libertarian bordering on anarchist say about a socialist bordering on Marxist that he doesn't act enough, it's too much talk? Other then vague statements you still haven't explained that incomprehensible position or backed up any real disagreement with him other then finally stating he's too "central."

[GSPODS]

Ron Paul said it best:
"Once we allow federal control we lose the opportunity for states to enact legislation. … Our focus should be on getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."

[KazooSkinsFan]

Ron Paul said it best:
"Once we allow federal control we lose the opportunity for states to enact legislation. … Our focus should be on getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."

Wow, one Ron Paul quote and suddenly your wanting a socialist racist named Obama Bin Laden to act and not just talk suddenly makes sense. Your liberal attitudes toward Republicans explained. Your sweeping statements that don't translate into any actual policy positions just swept away. You ARE now a libertarian/anarchist, ATV. What a transformation.

BTW, did you have any specifics on what you want the Federal government to stay out of the States way on? Any ideas how to get there? Looking to gain from your insight and guidance as I'm still unable to comprehend your great equation the best way to limit government is to ask a socialist/Marxist to stop just talking and act. Far beyond my comprehension, oh wild one.

[GSPODS]

BTW, did you have any specifics on what you want the Federal government to stay out of the States way on? Any ideas how to get there? Looking to gain from your insight and guidance as I'm still unable to comprehend your great equation the best way to limit government is to ask a socialist/Marxist to stop just talking and act. Far beyond my comprehension, oh wild one.

I want the federal government to stay out of every issue not specifically assigned to them by the Constitution. Here are several:

Abortion
Education
Religion
Health Care
Free Trade / Free Enterprise
Stem Cell research
Same Sex Marriage

None of these are issues where the federal government is granted Constitutional power as the Constitution is written. If I had more time, I could make this list several pages long. The bottom line is I don't want the federal government involved in or concerned with anything that is not a federal concern as defined by the Constitution.

[KazooSkinsFan]

BTW, did you have any specifics on what you want the Federal government to stay out of the States way on? Any ideas how to get there? Looking to gain from your insight and guidance as I'm still unable to comprehend your great equation the best way to limit government is to ask a socialist/Marxist to stop just talking and act. Far beyond my comprehension, oh wild one.

I want the federal government to stay out of every issue not specifically assigned to them by the Constitution. Here are several:

Abortion
Education
Religion
Health Care
Free Trade / Free Enterprise
Stem Cell research
Same Sex Marriage

None of these are issues where the federal government is granted Constitutional power as the Constitution is written. If I had more time, I could make this list several pages long. The bottom line is I don't want the federal government involved in or concerned with anything that is not a federal concern as defined by the Constitution.

And, since the only personal criticism you've managed to come up with Whitey hater Obama is that he's too much talk and not enough action and he opposes most of your positions, again, how does that make sense if these really are your positions? The only criticism you can come up with to criticize the race baiter is you want him to act more? Explain.