The various programs are the problems not the tax cuts.
-
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
- Thread starter FollowTheWay
- Start date
The various programs are the problems not the tax cuts.
I would love to answer you but you've screwed up the quote function so badly I'm not going to bother with it.
The U.S. is now the largest spender on its military in the world. We spend as much for defense as the next 9 out of the top 10 countries COMBINED. There is a tremendous amount of waste in the pentagon. This article reveals $125B wasted in the Pentagon.
Pentagon buries evidence of $125 billion in bureaucratic waste
The Pentagon has buried an internal study that exposed $125 billion in administrative waste in its business operations amid fears Congress would use the findings as an excuse to slash the defense budget, according to interviews and confidential memos obtained by The Washington Post.
Pentagon leaders had requested the study to help make their enormous back-office bureaucracy more efficient and reinvest any savings in combat power. But after the project documented far more wasteful spending than expected, senior defense officials moved swiftly to kill it by discrediting and suppressing the results.
The report, issued in January 2015, identified “a clear path” for the Defense Department to save $125 billion over five years. The plan would not have required layoffs of civil servants or reductions in military personnel. Instead, it would have streamlined the bureaucracy through attrition and early retirements, curtailed high-priced contractors and made better use of information technology.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As a libertarian, why wouldn't you demand that the military become more efficient? Other countries run a much more efficient military. Why can't we? In addition, defense contractors are milking the government for hundreds of billions of dollars with cost overruns and shoddy work. The new F-35 fighter cannot communicate with the existing top fighters, the F-16's, except by plain old voice. As a retired engineer who worked in communications it's mind-boggling this wasn't an original requirement. At this point, it's uncertain this can be developed. So Lockheed will argue that we have to replace our F-16's with F-35's to be able to run a 21st century coordinated attack. All Trumps wants to do is throw more money at this black hole without ordering a thorough investigation of how defense funds are spent and how we can become more efficient.
Here's another article on the largest bureaucracy in the world:
The Scale of Pentagon Waste Boggles the Mind, But Congress Keeps Giving Them More
The Scale of Pentagon Waste Boggles the Mind, But Congress Keeps Giving Them More - FPIF
If any other public agency had blown hundreds of billions of dollars, Congress would hold hearings. If it's the Pentagon, it gets $80 billion more.
I'll address the other half of your question in another pose. (This is getting too long.)
Admit your mistake about the nature of the Social Security Trust fund.
Please show us a sample calculation instead of an unsupported statement. BTW, did your father, mother, uncle etc. take out Social Security? How would they have reacted if you said they were getting too much?
My reply was deleted so I'm just going to paste these ridiculous replies to my original post and my corrections.
**********************************************************************************************************************
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?[/QUOTE]
Because none of these are relevant to the discussion.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
That was $125 billion over 5 years or about $25 billion per year or 3.8% of the defense budget as Bureaucratic Waste. Can you imagine the savings that could be gleaned from the $10,849 billion spent by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over that same 5 years if a similar report of waste was made on their spending? If the same 3.8% in savings can be found, that would be $412 billion in waste from the Entitlement Programs.
Why strain $125 billion and swallow $412 billion?
PS. We spend more than the "next 9 out of the top 10 countries COMBINED" because we DO more than all of the other countries combined. We have developed lasers to defend ships from incoming missiles. US anti-missile systems defend cities in Israel and South Korea ... the next 9 countries are not.)
China is building a ring of fortified islands to claim the South China Sea as Chinese Territory. (US Warships are challenging that claim to allow countries like the Philippines to continue to fish and all nations to sail through the South China Sea ... the next 9 countries are not.)
Ask unified Germany about what the US spends to counter Russian aggression. What are the "next 9 out of the top 10 countries COMBINED" doing?
As I said, I would reduce the Defense budget by at least 50%, close all foreign bases and retask the military with defense of US Territory ... like the next 9 out of the top 10 countries do. I would also zero out the entitlement programs as that is not the Constitutional mandate of a Federal Government. States, Counties and Municipalities are free to raise taxes and create those programs if they wish.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
See Post #8.
By the time I located the data, it was too late to edit the earlier post.
How would your father, mother, uncle etc. have reacted if you said they were getting too much?
About the same as the average welfare recipient when told they need to work to get money from the government.
The curse of living in an age of entitlement.
One reason is that LIberals want to use the military as a social experiment.
In the old Brown boot Army -
1) h0mos@xals, ect were not permitted to join -
With this new Army - we must have "proper" accommodations, which means additional facilities.
2) when a female became pregnant - she had ticket for an automatic discharge.
nowadays - she will receive at least 3 months paid leave
Then after the birth of her baby - she will be entitled to full BAQ - even if she is not married.
In addition - due to the number of single parents - additional child care centers are required.
3) Lower rank enlisted had several men to one room/bay. Nowadays- the military, after initial training
is looking for single rooms for all personel,
4) PCS moves -(permanent change of Station) When I was in- (and I assume it is currently the same) when a SM
recieved orders for a short tour (ie Korea) for one year -he normally receives orders for a Stateside post follwoing his tour in Korea. He then is authorized to ship his family "back home". Upon return to CONUS - the family will once again be shipped at goverment expense to his new stateside unit. -- Example - A GI is at Fort Hood, Tx- he recieves orders for Korea - with a return to Ft Hood. (not unusual as Hood is an extremely large post. ) The Govt moves the family at Govt expense to Richmond, VA. At the end of his Korean Tour - the family will return to Ft Hood at Govt expense. - IMHO - in this case the family should just stay in goverment housing at Ft Hood.
Many more examples of waste in the military -
Open for discussion
Salty said: ↑
You say other programs - do you mean programs such as welfare, Education, money to pay farmers not to plant, ect, ect, ect,
Why did you not answer my question?????
would still like to hear it.
You say other programs - do you mean programs such as welfare, Education, money to pay farmers not to plant, ect, ect, ect,
Why did you not answer my question?????
would still like to hear it.
If the Social Security program is such a great program it needs to be voluntary. If I work my whole life, retire at 65 and die at 66 and have a private plan, my heirs get the money. If I work my whole life and have SS and die one year after my retirement, my heirs are out of luck. Plus, my rate of return on my government "investment" is lousy compared to a private retirement plan.
Ask yourself, why does the Congress and other government employees exempt themselves from the system ? It's because it was/is a lousy program from the get go, a Ponzi scheme that has to force participation, and then the government steels from the supposed "lockbox" for other programs. Socialism does not work well in any way it is tried or implemented.
Ask yourself, why does the Congress and other government employees exempt themselves from the system ? It's because it was/is a lousy program from the get go, a Ponzi scheme that has to force participation, and then the government steels from the supposed "lockbox" for other programs. Socialism does not work well in any way it is tried or implemented.
Yes, you my friend see clearly the reality of a Federal government that is given specific tasks by the Federal Constitution. That is the cause of most of our financial problems, not abiding by the clear words of our founding document.
AS of 1983, Congress is required to participate in SS
I will attempt to navigate through the mess you created and answer your so-called points.
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
Yes, the surplus money in the Social Security trust fund has been used for general expenses. I said this a couple of times in my previous response to you.
As usual, you are wrong. The surplus money in the Social Security trust fund is invested in US bonds. Yes, they are special US bonds sold only to the Social Security Administration. When you say, "a special type of U.S. bond which can only be sold to the FED" do you mean the Social Security administration sells these bonds to the Federal Reserve? I'll save you the embarrassment of possibly answering 'yes' to that and tell you that no, the SSA does not "sell" the bonds to the Federal Reserve. Neither do they "sell" them to the US Treasury. Rather, like all kinds of bonds they are "redeemed" when they mature. This is the same for all types of US Treasury bonds. When they mature they are redeemed by turning them into the US Treasury Department.
Once again I presume by FED you really mean the US Treasury Department. Once again, they are not "repurchased" they are redeemed. I suppose if the SSA needed to sell some of these bonds prematurely they could, but they would be giving up the benefit of earning the full interest on them and would probably sell at a discount to their book value.
They are just like ordinary bonds but they are internal to the US Treasury Department and the SSA.
Once again, there is nothing special about the bonds except that they are off-limits to anyone except Treasury and SSA.
Why are they worthless IOU's? Are all Treasury securities worthless? Are TIPS bonds worthless? Are EE Series US Savings bonds worthless? In the sense that there is no real, tangible asset backing the bonds, I suppose you could say they were worthless. But then you'd have to say that the bonds that China holds, the bonds that Japan holds, the bonds that retirees hold in their IRA's and 401k plans are just as worthless. Because only the 'full faith and credit of the US government' is behind these bonds.
Please stop demonstrating your ignorance. In one sentences you've made two errors.
1. Bonds are redeemed, yes, but they are not "sold".
2. They are not "sold" to the Federal Reserve.
I think you are confusing the fact that in the past the bonds in the Social Security trust fund were general US Treasury notes, the same type that anyone could buy. But at some point (possibly 1983, is this why your undies are in a bunch?) they changed that so only these particular Treasury bonds could be used in the Social Security Trust fund.
In fact, this is probably the source of your entire harangue. They changed the type of securities held in the trust fund. Still, they are still US Treasury bonds. The surplus is still invested in these bonds. As has been the practice for a long, long, time the funds from the sale of these bonds are placed in the general fund. Certainly this was done before Reagan.
"Worthless IOU's" = US Treasury Bonds. So ALL US TREASURY BONDS ARE WORTHLESS? That's what you are saying, in effect. Again, supposing China decided it needed to cash in all their bonds? They'd be as worthless as the SSA bonds.
It is relevant because the proceeds from the sale of bonds to the SSA trust fund are intermingled with money from the sale of T-bills, TIPS, EE savings bonds. It goes into the same pot of money. It's been this way for a long, long, time. Not starting with Reagan. The whole premise of your OP is inaccurate.
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
FollowTheWay said:
Yes, the surplus money in the Social Security trust fund has been used for general expenses. I said this a couple of times in my previous response to you.
As usual, you are wrong. The surplus money in the Social Security trust fund is invested in US bonds. Yes, they are special US bonds sold only to the Social Security Administration. When you say, "a special type of U.S. bond which can only be sold to the FED" do you mean the Social Security administration sells these bonds to the Federal Reserve? I'll save you the embarrassment of possibly answering 'yes' to that and tell you that no, the SSA does not "sell" the bonds to the Federal Reserve. Neither do they "sell" them to the US Treasury. Rather, like all kinds of bonds they are "redeemed" when they mature. This is the same for all types of US Treasury bonds. When they mature they are redeemed by turning them into the US Treasury Department.
InTheLight said:
FollowTheWay said:
Once again I presume by FED you really mean the US Treasury Department. Once again, they are not "repurchased" they are redeemed. I suppose if the SSA needed to sell some of these bonds prematurely they could, but they would be giving up the benefit of earning the full interest on them and would probably sell at a discount to their book value.
InTheLight said:
FollowTheWay said:
They are just like ordinary bonds but they are internal to the US Treasury Department and the SSA.
Once again, there is nothing special about the bonds except that they are off-limits to anyone except Treasury and SSA.
FollowTheWay said:
Why are they worthless IOU's? Are all Treasury securities worthless? Are TIPS bonds worthless? Are EE Series US Savings bonds worthless? In the sense that there is no real, tangible asset backing the bonds, I suppose you could say they were worthless. But then you'd have to say that the bonds that China holds, the bonds that Japan holds, the bonds that retirees hold in their IRA's and 401k plans are just as worthless. Because only the 'full faith and credit of the US government' is behind these bonds.
FollowTheWay said:
Please stop demonstrating your ignorance. In one sentences you've made two errors.
1. Bonds are redeemed, yes, but they are not "sold".
2. They are not "sold" to the Federal Reserve.
InTheLight said:
FollowTheWay said:
I think you are confusing the fact that in the past the bonds in the Social Security trust fund were general US Treasury notes, the same type that anyone could buy. But at some point (possibly 1983, is this why your undies are in a bunch?) they changed that so only these particular Treasury bonds could be used in the Social Security Trust fund.
In fact, this is probably the source of your entire harangue. They changed the type of securities held in the trust fund. Still, they are still US Treasury bonds. The surplus is still invested in these bonds. As has been the practice for a long, long, time the funds from the sale of these bonds are placed in the general fund. Certainly this was done before Reagan.
FollowTheWay said:
"Worthless IOU's" = US Treasury Bonds. So ALL US TREASURY BONDS ARE WORTHLESS? That's what you are saying, in effect. Again, supposing China decided it needed to cash in all their bonds? They'd be as worthless as the SSA bonds.
InTheLight said:
FollowTheWay said:
It is relevant because the proceeds from the sale of bonds to the SSA trust fund are intermingled with money from the sale of T-bills, TIPS, EE savings bonds. It goes into the same pot of money. It's been this way for a long, long, time. Not starting with Reagan. The whole premise of your OP is inaccurate.
Last edited:
I think I know the source of FollowTheWay's angst and anger. The SSA did not have much (or any) surpluses in the Trust Fund until the changes made in 1983. The FICA tax rate was raised, the maximum income limit was raised, and the minimum retirement age was raised. These changes did exactly what they were supposed to do--create surpluses in the Social Security trust fund.
The question then became--What to do with these surpluses? Answer: Invest them in US bonds. What should we do with the proceeds from these bonds? Same thing we do with proceeds from the sale of other bonds, put the money in the general fund.
My guess is that FollowTheWay thinks this was some scheme dreamed up by Reagan to increase defense spending.
The question then became--What to do with these surpluses? Answer: Invest them in US bonds. What should we do with the proceeds from these bonds? Same thing we do with proceeds from the sale of other bonds, put the money in the general fund.
My guess is that FollowTheWay thinks this was some scheme dreamed up by Reagan to increase defense spending.
China, Russia and Saudi Arabia (not really a U.S. ally any more) are numbers 2-4. Who started the last 3 major wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq? Did we win or lose them and why were we there in the first place?
Let's look at the so-called entitlement programs.
Health (Medicare/Medicaid) = 28% of Federal Spending
Almost all current retirees rely on Medicare for their retirement medical perhaps supplemented by a couple of thousand from their company for Medicare supplemental insurance. Your proposal would take away medical insurance from almost sall retired people in the U.S. The days of the gold-plated retirement benefits from a company are over.
About 20 percent of Medicaid spending goes toward covering long-term care such as nursing homes. Most private health insurance doesn’t cover long-term care, meaning the elderly and disabled often have to pay out of pocket or rely on federal programs such as Medicaid to afford those services. Long-term care payments cover nursing homes, care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities, and home health care, among other services.
Social Security = 25% of Federal Spending
Defense = 16% of Federal Spending
Veterans; Transportation; Food & Agriculture = tied at 4% of Federal Spending each.
I agree that paying farmers not to plant is something we should get rid of. The day of the family farm is almost past. Now big agricultural companies dominate farming.
What do you call welfare? Clinton put a work requirement on everything that wasn't directed to the handicapped, the elderly or those who couldn't get a job because of the economy. People look at the unemployment rate and say we're doing great but it's not really true. many people are working 40+ hours per week at minimum wage jobs and still are poor. I talked to a friend of mine from church last Sunday who does that and is living with her mother but still can barely survive. A GA $8.50/hr min. wage doesn't pay the bills.
Interesting. Another poster here claims that retirees get far more than they paid into S Sec. Take away S Sec. and the majority of currently retired people will be living in a box under the freeway bridge.
You still don't understand that Soc. Sec. "bonds" are not negotiable in the open market. They are worthless IOU's. Get back to me when you understand that. The surplus in the SS Trust fund was planned to offset the increased outflow of funds for boomer retirements. Spending that money has made the system unstable.
I do understand it. I said it about three times now. The bonds the Social Security Trust Fund purchases with their surplus money are special bonds not available to anyone else. There I said it again. You happy now?
They are US Treasury bonds. A special class. Why are these bonds worthless and other US bonds not worthless?
The proceeds from the sale of the special class of bonds (said it again!) to the SS trust fund are put in the general fund, yes. Just like the proceeds from the sale of all other US bonds are put into the general fund.
Why are they worthless?