|
Post by tnthomas on Feb 10, 2023 18:05:18 GMT -5
In 1983 Reagan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people. The GOP has been scheming ways to steal S.S. funds and convert them into tax cuts for the wealthy ever since.
Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The mechanism, which allowed the government to transfer $2.7 trillion from the Social Security fund to the general fund over a 30-year period, was the brainchild of President Ronald Reagan and his advisers.
The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.
The 1983 legislation was sold to the public, and to the Congress, as a long-term fix for Social Security. The payroll tax hike was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for 30 years, which would be set aside to cover the increased cost of paying benefits when the boomers retired.
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.
|
|
|
Post by oldmontana on Feb 10, 2023 21:09:57 GMT -5
In 1983 Reagan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people. The GOP has been scheming ways to steal S.S. funds and convert them into tax cuts for the wealthy ever since.
Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs. The mechanism, which allowed the government to transfer $2.7 trillion from the Social Security fund to the general fund over a 30-year period, was the brainchild of President Ronald Reagan and his advisers.
The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.
The 1983 legislation was sold to the public, and to the Congress, as a long-term fix for Social Security. The payroll tax hike was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for 30 years, which would be set aside to cover the increased cost of paying benefits when the boomers retired.
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.
FYI...The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government." Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting.
|
|
|
Post by tnthomas on Feb 11, 2023 12:10:48 GMT -5
More Republican shenanigans:
MAGA Republicans Plan to Hold the Economy Hostage to Cut Social Security and Medicare
MAGA Republicans have made clear they want these cuts to come from programs like Social Security and Medicare and that they intend to use the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations to try to force cuts to these crucial programs that protect tens of millions of working- and middle-class families from poverty and precarity—even if it means pushing the economy to the brink of collapse.
Here’s what you need to know: The Debt Ceiling: What Is It?
The debt ceiling is a numerical limit, set by Congress, on how much money the federal government can borrow to pay its bills.
Most years, the federal government spends more than it takes in in taxes, so it has to sell Treasury debt and use that borrowed money to cover the difference and pay the country’s bills, up to the limit set by Congress. When the government reaches that borrowing limit, Congress can either raise the debt ceiling or vote to suspend it for a specific period of time, allowing the Treasury Department to borrow as much as it needs.
Increasing the debt ceiling is a routine congressional task and was an afterthought for decades. Congress has raised the debt ceiling 78 times since 1960—nearly once a year, because failing to raise the limit would cause the US to default on its debt, triggering a global financial crisis.
But over the past decade, as Republican politicians have become more extreme, they’ve repeatedly tried to use the debt ceiling to force cuts to essential programs like Social Security and Medicare. In 2011, Republicans brought us close to a debt limit crisis to try to extort concessions from former President Obama. A deal was reached in time after Obama agreed to across-the-board spending cuts, though this did not include cuts to Social Security. Despite the agreement, the uncertainty and chaos Republicans imposed on the nation led to America’s credit rating being downgraded for the first time in history.
This year, Republicans appear once again to be eager to push the country to the brink of default. Unless Democrats agree to cut spending, Republicans have said they won’t agree to raise the debt ceiling. Why? What Do Republicans Want?
Republicans claim that the government needs to cut spending and reduce the national debt in order to be fiscally responsible, but these very same lawmakers recently voted to add $114 billion to the deficit by voting to repeal IRS funding that will allow the agency to pursue super-wealthy tax cheats.
Many of these lawmakers were also avid supporters of the Trump administration, which oversaw a debt increase of nearly $8 trillion, due in large part to Trump’s 2017 tax cut, which primarily benefited the wealthy and big corporations.
|
|
|
Post by oldmontana on Feb 15, 2023 18:35:12 GMT -5
More Republican shenanigans:
MAGA Republicans Plan to Hold the Economy Hostage to Cut Social Security and Medicare
MAGA Republicans have made clear they want these cuts to come from programs like Social Security and Medicare and that they intend to use the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations to try to force cuts to these crucial programs that protect tens of millions of working- and middle-class families from poverty and precarity—even if it means pushing the economy to the brink of collapse.
Here’s what you need to know: The Debt Ceiling: What Is It?
The debt ceiling is a numerical limit, set by Congress, on how much money the federal government can borrow to pay its bills.
Most years, the federal government spends more than it takes in in taxes, so it has to sell Treasury debt and use that borrowed money to cover the difference and pay the country’s bills, up to the limit set by Congress. When the government reaches that borrowing limit, Congress can either raise the debt ceiling or vote to suspend it for a specific period of time, allowing the Treasury Department to borrow as much as it needs.
Increasing the debt ceiling is a routine congressional task and was an afterthought for decades. Congress has raised the debt ceiling 78 times since 1960—nearly once a year, because failing to raise the limit would cause the US to default on its debt, triggering a global financial crisis.
But over the past decade, as Republican politicians have become more extreme, they’ve repeatedly tried to use the debt ceiling to force cuts to essential programs like Social Security and Medicare. In 2011, Republicans brought us close to a debt limit crisis to try to extort concessions from former President Obama. A deal was reached in time after Obama agreed to across-the-board spending cuts, though this did not include cuts to Social Security. Despite the agreement, the uncertainty and chaos Republicans imposed on the nation led to America’s credit rating being downgraded for the first time in history.
This year, Republicans appear once again to be eager to push the country to the brink of default. Unless Democrats agree to cut spending, Republicans have said they won’t agree to raise the debt ceiling. Why? What Do Republicans Want?
Republicans claim that the government needs to cut spending and reduce the national debt in order to be fiscally responsible, but these very same lawmakers recently voted to add $114 billion to the deficit by voting to repeal IRS funding that will allow the agency to pursue super-wealthy tax cheats.
Many of these lawmakers were also avid supporters of the Trump administration, which oversaw a debt increase of nearly $8 trillion, due in large part to Trump’s 2017 tax cut, which primarily benefited the wealthy and big corporations.
"Increasing the debt ceiling is a routine congressional task and was an afterthought for decades. Congress has raised the debt ceiling 78 times since 1960—nearly once a year, because failing to raise the limit would cause the US to default on its debt, triggering a global financial crisis." I say it's time to change..FYI How much debt does each U.S. citizen owe? United States national debt per capita 2021. In 2021, the gross federal debt in the United States amounted to around 85,552 U.S. dollars per capita. This is a moderate increase from the previous year, when the per capita national debt amounted to about 80,885 U.S. dollars. Servicing the debt is one of the federal government's biggest expenses. Net interest payments on the debt are estimated to total $395.5 billion this fiscal year, or 6.8% of all federal outlays, according to the Office of Management and Budget.1 day ago It would not be that hard to cut spending. We see money spent for things we do not needed.
|
|
|
Post by tnthomas on Feb 15, 2023 22:24:39 GMT -5
It would not be that hard to cut spending. We see money spent for things we do not needed. There are many points of view as to what constitutes " things we do not need". For example, Defense spending accounts for more than 10 percent of all federal spending and nearly half of all discretionary spending.
As of May 2022 that amounts to $801 Billion dollars. Some legislators would rather spend less on the military, especially since we are not at war, whereas other legislators would prefer to spend more on defense, and less for the good of U.S. citizens in need.
|
|
|
Post by birdgal on Feb 16, 2023 16:42:58 GMT -5
Social Security was taken out of every paycheck from the first one till the last one, and I worked for over 30 years. Social Security is not a handout or a gift. It is MY money that was taken out of MY paycheck for ME to have a secure retirement.
Stop making it sound like a damn handout or a gift. It was taken out of my paycheck for my security. Not a gift or a handout. It's money that I was promised to get back when I retired.
Did I misunderstand back then? Do I have that wrong?
|
|
|
Post by tnthomas on Feb 16, 2023 17:59:49 GMT -5
Did I misunderstand back then? Do I have that wrong? No, the Republicans do, they keep referring to SS as an "entitlement"(said with a sneer, just like when they say "liberal"). The Rebubs incorrectly call SS "socialism"(with a sneer), saying that socialism is really communism, and you know ho we all [should] hate that.
|
|
|
Post by birdgal on Feb 16, 2023 18:26:28 GMT -5
Thank you Tnthomas.
GOP, it is an entitlement. I am "entitled" to my own money. Imagine that?
I'm wondering if any of those Republicans or family or friends of theirs are getting that entitlement. If so, why not give the money back? Why not convince their friends and family to do the same?
Why not spend more time on getting guns off the streets and out of the hands of crack pots?
Why not do your damn jobs instead of posing for the TV crews?
|
|
|
Post by 2old on Feb 16, 2023 19:28:25 GMT -5
It would not be that hard to cut spending. We see money spent for things we do not needed. There are many points of view as to what constitutes " things we do not need". For example, Defense spending accounts for more than 10 percent of all federal spending and nearly half of all discretionary spending.
As of May 2022 that amounts to $801 Billion dollars. Some legislators would rather spend less on the military, especially since we are not at war, whereas other legislators would prefer to spend more on defense, and less for the good of U.S. citizens in need. DOD contractors employ a plethora of lobbyists with their pockets full of big money and perks. Accepting the perks and campaign donations is safe for legislators because the DOD is an easy sell to constituents. "I'm a fan of our military and will do everything to keep them the strongest military in the world!" Incident after incident of mold, vermin, etc. making military barracks unfit for our soldiers and their families. That doesn't get attention. instead, give the money to the Boeings and Lockheeds where the legislators can brag about new planes, tanks, ships... The GOP in Congress fought tooth and nail to not pass health care for the victims of burn pits in combat locations. Why spend money on veterans' health care when TRump called them losers and suckers. We need that money to pay back our lobbyist for the golf membership at an exclusive country club. Oh! TFG stole money from DOD funds to rehabilitate barracks for use on his bogus wall. Nope! Don't stop production of one fighter plane to pay for your ineffective wall. Take if from the money that was supposed to upgrade where our military and their families live. Our son will retire from the U.S. Army in the next 1 1/2 years. He's had a stellar career and we're proud of him. Even he, though shakes his head at the waste he has seen while so many things that would make life better, safer, and healthier go begging.
|
|
|
Post by tnthomas on Feb 16, 2023 20:12:24 GMT -5
The GOP in Congress fought tooth and nail to not pass health care for the victims of burn pits in combat locations. Why spend money on veterans' health care when TRump called them losers and suckers. We need that money to pay back our lobbyist for the golf membership at an exclusive country club. That really angers me to no end, as it should every veteran and every citizen that calls themself patriotic.
|
|
|
Post by birdgal on Feb 16, 2023 20:55:25 GMT -5
Trump calling Veterans losers and suckers? Where and when did he serve? I'll wait.
What a nasty waste of flesh this thing is. How can anybody support him? That smirk, that richy rich spoiled grown up brat sneer.
As long as this thing has people cheering him on I worry about what kind of country we will become.
The Republicans are turning their backs on Veterans. I'm trying to think of something more deplorable than that and I've got nothing. Nope. Not one thing.
Still trying...
|
|
|
Post by Sunkist on Feb 17, 2023 9:26:38 GMT -5
Thank you Tnthomas. GOP, it is an entitlement. I am "entitled" to my own money. Imagine that? I'm wondering if any of those Republicans or family or friends of theirs are getting that entitlement. If so, why not give the money back? Why not convince their friends and family to do the same? Why not spend more time on getting guns off the streets and out of the hands of crack pots? Why not do your damn jobs instead of posing for the TV crews? Oh it gets worse.. I've been noticing for more than a decade "they" not only refer to SS as an 'entitlement,' but SS and everything a person is not earning, in full, at this moment, as 'Welfare.' This bugs the * out of me. Unless there's a state or two still holding out- possible, but I doubt it, 'welfare' no longer exists. and neither does- as they also call it- 'public assistance.' Individuals are either receiving money they paid from their taxes in the past, OR are paying in the present. What I'd really like to know, though, is why, in the 21st century, there are so many more hateful people who clearly want "others" to be in the worst possible situations financially, or even die from lack. It's scary, it really is. And it's not only Republicans, so-called Libertarians have the same approach.
|
|
|
Post by Sunkist on Feb 17, 2023 9:28:25 GMT -5
Did I misunderstand back then? Do I have that wrong? No, the Republicans do, they keep referring to SS as an "entitlement"(said with a sneer, just like when they say "liberal"). The Rebubs incorrectly call SS "socialism"(with a sneer), saying that socialism is really communism, and you know ho we all [should] hate that. They have the idea- and sometimes express it- that the biggest 'enemy' the U.S. ever had was FDR, for all the "New Deal" programs to help poor people.
|
|
|
Post by notbob on Feb 18, 2023 12:37:25 GMT -5
Thank you Tnthomas. GOP, it is an entitlement. I am "entitled" to my own money. Imagine that? I'm wondering if any of those Republicans or family or friends of theirs are getting that entitlement. If so, why not give the money back? Why not convince their friends and family to do the same? Why not spend more time on getting guns off the streets and out of the hands of crack pots? Why not do your damn jobs instead of posing for the TV crews? Oh it gets worse.. I've been noticing for more than a decade "they" not only refer to SS as an 'entitlement,' but SS and everything a person is not earning, in full, at this moment, as 'Welfare.' This bugs the * out of me. Unless there's a state or two still holding out- possible, but I doubt it, 'welfare' no longer exists. and neither does- as they also call it- 'public assistance.' Individuals are either receiving money they paid from their taxes in the past, OR are paying in the present. What I'd really like to know, though, is why, in the 21st century, there are so many more hateful people who clearly want "others" to be in the worst possible situations financially, or even die from lack. It's scary, it really is. And it's not only Republicans, so-called Libertarians have the same approach. Years ago, I became frustrated with the dishonesty of the Republican party though at the time, I still believed in the Republican philosophy - a philosophy rooted in libertarianism, but not as radical. The basis for libertarianism is that, according to the Constitution, the federal government only has the right to levy taxes for three purposes - to support the three branches of government, to support a military, and to have a fund to draw from in the event of an emergency. I decided to vote Libertarian instead of Republican. As I became more politically informed, I began to realize that libertarianism had long been abandoned with things like federal funding for schools, infrastructure, law enforcement, immigration, national forests and parks, protection against natural disasters, and a plethora of other things that affect all of us nationally. How the government got away with implementing taxation to include these things, I don't know. Maybe they considered them to be "emergencies," but we can't strive for equality for all without federally subsidized programs. As to why, in the 21st century, there are so many more hateful people who clearly want "others" to be in the worst possible situations financially, or even die from lack, the answer is as it always is. The most powerful people in the world who seek increasing power to control things for their benefit, spend money on political campaigns and lobbying perks, creating a government that serves them over the masses. Yes, we still have (more or less) free and fair elections, but those with all the money and power to control messaging promote issues that divide us. Divide and conquer. It almost worked on 1/6/21. We got lucky to have dodged a bullet, but it hasn't stopped. The fact that the person who blamed election losses on Jewish space lasers can raise millions of dollars every time she says something stupid illustrates my point. I've said it before, and I'll reiterate, we won't have a government that prioritizes taking care of the masses over and above the wishes of a handful of greedy, wannabe oligarchs unless and until we get money out of politics. As far as I'm concerned, that should be our number one priority. All the social issues we face are nothing more than symptoms of a government that is broken because we've allowed the super-wealthy to own it.
|
|
|
Post by birdgal on Feb 18, 2023 14:29:19 GMT -5
True. All true.
|
|