• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate. The tax increase was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years. The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers. But that didn’t happen. The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. His successor, George H.W. Bush, used the surplus money as a giant slush fund, and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush looted and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during their presidencies. So we can’t blame the whole problem on Reagan. Reagan was the one who figured out a way to use Social Security money as general revenue, and his successors just followed his example.

The $2.7 trillion, which is alleged to be in the trust fund, was all spent for wars, tax cuts for the rich, and other government programs. If the money is repaid at some point in the future, we could say is was just “borrowed.” But no arrangements have been made to repay the money, and nobody in government is suggesting that the money should be repaid. So, if it is never repaid, the money will definitely have been stolen.

This would not be such a serious problem if Social Security was still running annual surpluses. But Social Security ran it last annual surplus in 2009, and began running permanent annual deficits in 2010. The cost of paying full Social Security benefits for 2010 exceeded Social Security’s total tax revenue by $49 billion. So how did the government pay full Social Security benefits in 2010? They borrowed $49 billion from China, or one of our other creditors. And the amount that will have to be borrowed in future years will become larger and larger. If the trust fund had not been looted, there would be $2.7 trillion of marketable U.S. Treasury bonds in the fund that could be sold in the open market for cash. But the trust fund doesn’t hold a dime’s worth of marketable real assets of any kind.


So the great Social Security fraud, which began under Ronald Reagan in 1981, is still alive and well 32 years after it began. Republican and Democrat presidents and Republican and Democrat members of Congress, all share in the blame. There is nothing broken about Social Security. If the government had not stolen $2.7 trillion from Social Security, or, if the government would make arrangements to repay the stolen money, Social Security would be able to pay full benefits for at least 20 more years without any other action. But crooked politicians, who do not want to repay the money, are trying to convince the public that Social Security is a flawed system, which needs to be replaced with private accounts.

Social Security is a sound program that has worked well for more than 75 years. It ain’t broke, so why try to fix it? The government—not Social Security—is what is broken and needs to be fixed. It is time for the American people to stand their ground and fire the crooked politicians. President Obama, and every member of Congress know that everything in this article is true. But they have succeeded in fooling the people for three decades and seem to think they can continue to do so. Don’t let them get by with it!

*********************************************************************************************************
This is the first explanation of the real Social Security problem I've ever been able to find. What's really in the Social Security fund are "Special" 15 year government bonds which can only be sold to the Fed. Great. So where is the Fed going to get the money to repay this debt? That's the $2.7T dollar question.
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Try making a quick calculation of how much a worker pays into Social Security over their working lifetime in actual dollars (as if the money was being stored in a box for them) and then calculate how much that same worker will get in actual dollars from Social Security after they retire. Hint: Each worker will withdraw far more than they will deposit.

Even ignoring the SS that goes to people who are disabled, or the legalized fraud schemes common in unions (like a dramatic boost in pay just before retirement to increase SS payments based on your best years) or payments to spouses (who may have never worked) ... SS was NEVER built on getting back the money you put in. It was always built like a ponzi scheme where the current workers pay for current SS recipients.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is the first explanation of the real Social Security problem I've ever been able to find.

Translation: "I've been searching for an explanation of the problem with Social Security for over 30 years and I finally found one that puts the blame squarely on Reagan. Therefore it must be the correct explanation and all other theories are wrong."



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is idiotic to say we pay for a tax cut. Any spending that doesn't fit within a balanced budget is over spending.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate. The tax increase was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years. The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers. But that didn’t happen. The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. His successor, George H.W. Bush, used the surplus money as a giant slush fund, and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush looted and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during their presidencies. So we can’t blame the whole problem on Reagan. Reagan was the one who figured out a way to use Social Security money as general revenue, and his successors just followed his example.

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Social Security History
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate.

As a result of the changes in the law the FICA tax rate was increased in 1984 by 0.3%, from 5.4% to 5.7%. The maximum taxable income subject to social security taxes also increased from $35,700 to $37,800. Thus, for a worker earning $30,000 in 1984, their FICA tax increased $90 for the year.

Ninety-dollars. This is what you call a HEFTY INCREASE in taxes. Yet, when Trump's tax cut allows the average family of four to keep $1,600 of their money, that is a mere pittance.
 

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As a result of the changes in the law the FICA tax rate was increased in 1984 by 0.3%, from 5.4% to 5.7%. The maximum taxable income subject to social security taxes also increased from $35,700 to $37,800. Thus, for a worker earning $30,000 in 1984, their FICA tax increased $90 for the year.

Ninety-dollars. This is what you call a HEFTY INCREASE in taxes. Yet, when Trump's tax cut allows the average family of four to keep $1,600 of their money, that is a mere pittance.
Different rules for Democrats than Republicans.
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Try making a quick calculation of how much a worker pays into Social Security over their working lifetime in actual dollars (as if the money was being stored in a box for them) and then calculate how much that same worker will get in actual dollars from Social Security after they retire.

Here is the Data from the Urban Insitiute: "Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Benefits over a Lifetime, 2012 Update"

Single Female Earning the Average Wage ($44,600 in 2012 dollars)
  • turns 65 in 1960: lifetime taxes = $18,000 ; lifetime benefits = $175,000
  • turns 65 in 1980: lifetime taxes = $107,000 ; lifetime benefits = $341,000
  • turns 65 in 2010: lifetime taxes = $361,000 ; lifetime benefits = $509,000
  • turns 65 in 2020: lifetime taxes = $427,000 ; lifetime benefits = $595,000
  • turns 65 in 2030: lifetime taxes = $494,000 ; lifetime benefits = $717,000
One Earner Couple Earning the Average Wage ($44,600 in 2012 dollars)
  • turns 65 in 1960: lifetime taxes = $18,000 ; lifetime benefits = $225,000
  • turns 65 in 1980: lifetime taxes = $107,000 ; lifetime benefits = $528,000
  • turns 65 in 2010: lifetime taxes = $361,000 ; lifetime benefits = $854,000
  • turns 65 in 2020: lifetime taxes = $427,000 ; lifetime benefits = $1,007,000
  • turns 65 in 2030: lifetime taxes = $494,000 ; lifetime benefits = $1,228,000
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Man, I could feast on the misinformation all day long. (Lies? Oops, I better not say that!)

Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983

So the great Social Security fraud, which began under Ronald Reagan in 1981

Your bias is showing. How could the "great Social Security fraud" begin when Reagan took office if the Social Security Amendments didn't pass until 1983?

which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate.

The "heftiness" of this was addressed in previous post.


The tax increase was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years.

No, it was designed to keep Social Security solvent for the next 30 so when baby boomers retired there would be money to pay for their social security benefits.

The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers.

The public wasn't "led to believe" this at all. This is the way it has been done for decades.

But that didn’t happen. The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes

No, not ALL THE MONEY, just the surpluses. Which is exactly what is done with all proceeds from the sale of US treasury securities.


Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. His successor, George H.W. Bush, used the surplus money as a giant slush fund, and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush looted and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during their presidencies.

Naturally, you have a citation for this wild allegation.

So we can’t blame the whole problem on Reagan. Reagan was the one who figured out a way to use Social Security money as general revenue, and his successors just followed his example.

The sale of US treasuries are placed in the general fund. The surplus of the sales of bonds to the Social Security trust fund is put in the general fund. This is how it has been done for decades and certainly the way it was done before Reagan.

The $2.7 trillion, which is alleged to be in the trust fund, was all spent for wars, tax cuts for the rich, and other government programs.

Puh-leeze. Do you know how the 15 year social security bonds work? Or bonds in general? Interest is paid out annually at the prevailing interest rate and after the bond mautures you are paid the principal when the bond matures.

When a corporation sells a bond, do you think this money is set aside and kept in a trust fund so it can be repaid in 20 years? No. They use this money to invest in equipment or raise working capital. Same with the US government. The fact is the proceeds from the sale of the special 15 year Social Security bonds are intermingled with all other US bond sales. Why aren't you yelling about the US government raiding the sales of US Savings bonds to pay for wars? Hmmm...I seem to remember something about the US selling bonds to finance a particular war about 75 years ago...

If the money is repaid at some point in the future, we could say is was just “borrowed.” But no arrangements have been made to repay the money, and nobody in government is suggesting that the money should be repaid. So, if it is never repaid, the money will definitely have been stolen.

The money is promised to be repaid in the future. That is what a bond is. A promise to repay the principal in the future when the bond matures, plus interest it earns along the way.

This would not be such a serious problem if Social Security was still running annual surpluses. But Social Security ran it last annual surplus in 2009, and began running permanent annual deficits in 2010. The cost of paying full Social Security benefits for 2010 exceeded Social Security’s total tax revenue by $49 billion. So how did the government pay full Social Security benefits in 2010? They borrowed $49 billion from China, or one of our other creditors.

They borrow ALL THE MONEY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BONDS FROM CREDITORS! By definition, bond holders are creditors! Would you have social security bond holders ONLY be US citizens? How long would that finance social security?


And the amount that will have to be borrowed in future years will become larger and larger. If the trust fund had not been looted, there would be $2.7 trillion of marketable U.S. Treasury bonds in the fund that could be sold in the open market for cash. But the trust fund doesn’t hold a dime’s worth of marketable real assets of any kind.

Sigh...The trust fund wasn't looted. It was used as it has been for decades.


So the great Social Security fraud, which began under Ronald Reagan in 1981, is still alive and well 32 years after it began.

The "fraud" didn't start with Reagan. However, Reagan did try to shore up Social Security by raising the tax rated, increasing the maximum taxable income limit, and pushing out the age of eligibility. In other words, he tried to save Social Security. But here you are blaming him for an entirely made up construct.

Republican and Democrat presidents and Republican and Democrat members of Congress, all share in the blame. There is nothing broken about Social Security. If the government had not stolen $2.7 trillion from Social Security,

There you go again...Why aren't you yelling about the government raiding T-bills, TIPS, EE savings bonds?
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate. The tax increase was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years.

I wonder what you thought of Barack Obama raiding the Social Security trust fund when he cut the tax rate of the employee portion of FICA by 2.0%? He did this for two years. By your reasoning that is increasing the deficit and/or raiding the Social Security trust fund. A worker making $50,000 deprived the Social Security trust fund of $1,000 a year under Obama's plan. Did you get irate about that?

Probably not. But let Reagan and a bipartisan Congress raise taxes on that person by $113.40 and you have a conniption fit.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
.

The $2.7 trillion, which is alleged to be in the trust fund, was all spent for wars, tax cuts for the rich, and other government programs.

You say other programs - do you mean programs such as welfare, Education, money to pay farmers not to plant, ect, ect, ect,
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is idiotic to say we pay for a tax cut. Any spending that doesn't fit within a balanced budget is over spending.
A tax cut represents a reduction in the money the government has available to pay for various programs. It has the same impact as an increase in spending.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
A tax cut represents a reduction in the money the government has available to pay for various programs.

Yes, and hopefully the converse is true--a tax cut leads to a reduction in the number of available government programs.

It has the same impact as an increase in spending.

No it doesn't. Not in a million years.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Man, I could feast on the misinformation all day long. (Lies? Oops, I better not say that!)





Your bias is showing. How could the "great Social Security fraud" begin when Reagan took office if the Social Security Amendments didn't pass until 1983?

This was the author of the article I cited. I agree that it took place under the Reagan administration because the idea was generated by him and Greenspan.

The "heftiness" of this was addressed in previous post.




No, it was designed to keep Social Security solvent for the next 30 so when baby boomers retired there would be money to pay for their social security benefits.

A more accurate statement is that it would generate surpluses while the boomers were working to offset the increased expenditures when they began to retire. A rather easy concept to grasp.

The public wasn't "led to believe" this at all. This is the way it has been done for decades.

Another invalid statement. The 1983 Amendments also included a provision to exclude the Social Security Trust Fund from the unified budget (to take it "off-budget. In that way the fund could be raided without the public knowing about it. That's exactly what has happened.

No, not ALL THE MONEY, just the surpluses. Which is exactly what is done with all proceeds from the sale of US treasury securities.

You're wrong as usual. ALL the money in the Social Security Trust Fund has been used for other things. The largest use was for funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by GW Bush. What was left in the fund is a special type of U.S. bond which can only be sold to the FED. Comprende?. Do you understand? Obviously not because you made stupid statements about how these are like any other bond.


Naturally, you have a citation for this wild allegation.

Naturally you don't provide anything to support your ridiculous statements.

The sale of US treasuries are placed in the general fund. The surplus of the sales of bonds to the Social Security trust fund is put in the general fund. This is how it has been done for decades and certainly the way it was done before Reagan.

Once again, these bonds can only be sold to the FED. Where does the FED get the money to repurchase them? It has to come from the general budget. It would represent a $2.7T increase in the deficit.

Puh-leeze. Do you know how the 15 year social security bonds work? Or bonds in general? Interest is paid out annually at the prevailing interest rate and after the bond mautures you are paid the principal when the bond matures.
Onc again you show your ignorance of the fact that these are not ordinary bonds.

When a corporation sells a bond, do you think this money is set aside and kept in a trust fund so it can be repaid in 20 years? No. They use this money to invest in equipment or raise working capital. Same with the US government. The fact is the proceeds from the sale of the special 15 year Social Security bonds are intermingled with all other US bond sales. Why aren't you yelling about the US government raiding the sales of US Savings bonds to pay for wars? Hmmm...I seem to remember something about the US selling bonds to finance a particular war about 75 years ago...

Once again ignorance of the special nature of these bonds.

The money is promised to be repaid in the future. That is what a bond is. A promise to repay the principal in the future when the bond matures, plus interest it earns along the way.

OK. Let's have the Trump administration repay the $2.7T that is sitting in worthless IOU's in the Social security Trust Fund.

They borrow ALL THE MONEY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BONDS FROM CREDITORS! By definition, bond holders are creditors! Would you have social security bond holders ONLY be US citizens? How long would that finance social security?

The bond holder is the SS Trust Fund. It can ONLY redeem these bonds by selling them to the FED. You demonstrate over and over again your ignorance of the situation.


Sigh...The trust fund wasn't looted. It was used as it has been for decades.

Not the case. See the above.


The "fraud" didn't start with Reagan. However, Reagan did try to shore up Social Security by raising the tax rated, increasing the maximum taxable income limit, and pushing out the age of eligibility. In other words, he tried to save Social Security. But here you are blaming him for an entirely made up construct.

Reagan started the fraudulent practice of replacing dollars in the SS Trust Fund with worthless IOU's. Sigh. Will you EVER understand this?

There you go again...Why aren't you yelling about the government raiding T-bills, TIPS, EE savings bonds?
Because none of these are relevant to the discussion.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, and hopefully the converse is true--a tax cut leads to a reduction in the number of available government programs.



No it doesn't. Not in a million years.
Let's make this really simple so you might be able to understand it. If you receive a pay cut of $1,000, that has the same effect on your financial situation as an increase in your spending of $1,000. Why don't you think this is true?
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I wonder what you thought of Barack Obama raiding the Social Security trust fund when he cut the tax rate of the employee portion of FICA by 2.0%? He did this for two years. By your reasoning that is increasing the deficit and/or raiding the Social Security trust fund. A worker making $50,000 deprived the Social Security trust fund of $1,000 a year under Obama's plan. Did you get irate about that?

Probably not. But let Reagan and a bipartisan Congress raise taxes on that person by $113.40 and you have a conniption fit.
I did get irate about that as a matter of fact. I get mad about anyone making Social Security less viable.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works
Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works

Notice the source. This comes from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation.

The Treasury both receives the payroll taxes (and income taxes that higher-income retirees pay on their Social Security benefits) and pays monthly benefits on behalf of the Social Security Administration (SSA). The money stays in the Treasury's hands until it is either paid out as Social Security benefits or otherwise spent by the government. In fact, no money ever goes into the trust fund. Instead, the trust fund balance is the result of two accounting entries by the Treasury.

Any "money" remaining in the trust fund is converted into special-issue Treasury bonds, which are really nothing more than IOUs. In addition, the Treasury pays interest on the trust fund's balance by crediting the trust fund with additional IOUs. These are also strictly accounting entries, and again no money changes hands. After crediting the trust fund with the proper amount in IOUs, the government spends the extra Social Security tax collections just like any other tax revenue--to finance anything from aircraft carriers to education research.
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
A big one is the money spent on defense.
Health (Medicare/Medicaid) = 28% of Federal Spending
Social Security = 25% of Federal Spending
Defense = 16% of Federal Spending
Veterans; Transportation; Food & Agriculture = tied at 4% of Federal Spending each.

More than HALF (53%) of Federal Spending goes to the entitlement programs for the old and the poor that you want to expand. I am Libertarian, so I am content with reducing the Defense budget. However that also means that I am prepared to accept a world in which Iran and Israel exchange nuclear missiles as “not a US problem”. I am prepared to accept starving masses in some warlord governed territory like Somalia as also “not a US problem”. I am prepared to accept Chinese aggression in SE Asia as “not a US problem”. Are you prepared to accept a world in which bad things happen and there is no US military to send wherever people are crying into cameras to bring peace and stability to a region? Germany has a smaller military and you don’t see a lot of German Aircraft Carrier Task Groups in the hot spots of the world.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works
Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works

Notice the source. This comes from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation.

The Treasury both receives the payroll taxes (and income taxes that higher-income retirees pay on their Social Security benefits) and pays monthly benefits on behalf of the Social Security Administration (SSA). The money stays in the Treasury's hands until it is either paid out as Social Security benefits or otherwise spent by the government. In fact, no money ever goes into the trust fund. Instead, the trust fund balance is the result of two accounting entries by the Treasury.

Any "money" remaining in the trust fund is converted into special-issue Treasury bonds, which are really nothing more than IOUs. In addition, the Treasury pays interest on the trust fund's balance by crediting the trust fund with additional IOUs. These are also strictly accounting entries, and again no money changes hands. After crediting the trust fund with the proper amount in IOUs, the government spends the extra Social Security tax collections just like any other tax revenue--to finance anything from aircraft carriers to education research.
Yes, and is anyone disputing this? No. The idea that Reagan started this practice is what I'm disputing.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL
 
Top