It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
I agree with your sentiment, but who would decide what "informed" is?
OK I see where you went. I will agree. What I don't agree with is the framing of the national discussion regarding Social Security as some kind of welfare benefit that affects the deficit and the budget.
It is a "meme", "entitlement".
You know what we are talking about. You want to play semantics...let's go.
Dude you make way too many assumptions. I am so far left, when I took a political survey 10 years ago they allied me with the Quakers.
I am all about the bs about the left/right paradigm. I am an advocate and have no bones about expressing my views to others.
I was ranting about the overall ignorance of voters, screw that, just people in general. Lame, lame lame. Not only are they ignorant they are disinterested and could give a fug. To me that is very sad.
Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
I know. It can't be done. I made this op as a result of being frustrated with my 76 year old father, who is the nicest man in the world but dumber than a rock. I can say that but you cant.
I am just aggravated that the populace is so freakin ignorant.
None, no trust at all. However, I am down with the social safety net, maybe that didn't come across in my postings. I think our system of government needs to be demolished and remade from scratch. I just feel sad that more people are not engaged.
We can still be friends...right??
Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by Hopechest
You would get that I am not about all that if you read on through the thread. But that is ok. You are judging me without even knowing me. No, I am not about to give out aptitude tests at the polling station.
What bothers me is that people espouse upon issues with fabrications and would swear upon their first born child that it was true because they heard it on Hannity. This is a serious problem.
As everyone in Washington knows, the trust fund contains not cash but IOUs.
Allen Smith, economics professor emeritus at Eastern Illinois University and author of "The Big Lie: How Our Government Hoodwinked the Public, Emptied the S.S. Trust Fund, and caused The Great Economic Collapse," spotted the 2009 quote, and it is telling.
It says: , "Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public."
In other words, the trust fund is of no economic value.
That still seems correct to me: the whole idea of the Social Security and Medicare “trust funds” is a lie. An institutionalized, ritualized lie that the U.S. government tells the American people. One perpetuated by both political parties, as well as others with an interest in hiding the reality of these programs’ unfunded liabilities. One that many journalists uncritically repeat.
What Krauthammer means is that as Social Security draws down its trust fund, it sells bonds back to the Treasury. The money it gets for those bonds comes from the general fund, which means that it does indeed have an effect on the deficit.
That much is true. But the idea that the trust fund is a "fiction" is absolutely wrong. And since this zombie notion is bound to come up repeatedly over the next few weeks, it's worth explaining why it's wrong. So here it is.
Starting in 1983, the payroll tax was deliberately set higher than it needed to be to cover payments to retirees. For the next 30 years, this extra money was sent to the Treasury, and this windfall allowed income tax rates to be lower than they otherwise would have been. During this period, people who paid payroll taxes suffered from this arrangement, while people who paid income taxes benefited.
Now things have turned around. As the baby boomers have started to retire, payroll taxes are less than they need to be to cover payments to retirees. To make up this shortfall, the Treasury is paying back the money it got over the past 30 years, and this means that income taxes need to be higher than they otherwise would be. For the next few decades, people who pay payroll taxes will benefit from this arrangement, while people who pay income taxes will suffer.
If payroll taxpayers and income taxpayers were the same people, none of this would matter. The trust fund really would be a fiction. But they aren't. Payroll taxpayers tend to be the poor and the middle class. Income taxpayers tend to be the upper middle class and the rich. Long story short, for the past 30 years, the poor and the middle class overpaid and the rich benefited. For the next 30 years or so, the rich will overpay and the poor and the middle class will benefit.