Harold Burton
3/18/2011 12:43:00 PM
In article
<57168803-cc80-42f4-93ff-df4c741dfa1f@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
jane <jane.playne@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2:44?am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > Neolibertarian ?<cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > >> Neolibertarian ?<cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > >> >> Neolibertarian ?<cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >That sounds suspiciously like what a mugger says to himself as
> > >> >> >watches
> > >> >> >an unsuspecting victim walk down the street. You know, the kinds of
> >
> > >> >> That sound like the kind of propaganda that Goebbels might have used.
> >
> > >> >Sure, it's exactly how he justified seizing the wealth and property of
> > >> >the jews,
> >
> > >> And how you're justifying the transfer of wealth from the poor and
> > >> middle class to the rich.
> >
> > >Your map of the universe is horribly flawed if you can no longer even
> > >define theft.
> >
> > Because according to you rightards, Bernie Madoff's only crime was in
> > disobeying the rules. ?He wasn't actually guilty of stealing anybody's
> > money.
> >
> > --
> > Ray Fischer ? ? ? ? | ?Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
> > rfisc...@sonic.net ?| ?The new GOP ideal
>
> I, personally, don't know of anyone who doesn't think Bernie was a
> thief, but ti you are so desperate for a false victory, we will give
> you that one; Yes, Bernie Madoff was a thief.
>
> Now, let's compare Bernie with your congressman:
>
>
>
> There is another Bernie Madoff ripoff scheme out there. No one has
> gone to prison on this one yet because no one recognizes the
> similarity of the ripoff scheme. However, when you do a side by side
> comparison, the ripoff becomes obvious.
>
>
> BERNIE MADOFF:
> Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be
> invested and made available to them later. Investors contribute
> voluntarily.
> SOCIAL SECURITY:
> Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be
> invested in a "Trust Fund" and made available later. Wage earners
> have no choice but to contribute.
>
>
> BERNIE MADOFF:
> Instead of investing the money, Madoff spends it on nice homes in the
> Hamptons and yachts.
> SOCIAL SECURITY:
> Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund, the politicians use it
> for general spending and vote buying.
>
>
> BERNIE MADOFF:
> When the time comes to pay the investors back, Madoff simply uses
> some
> of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older
> investors.
> SOCIAL SECURITY:
> When benefits for older investors become due, the politicians pay
> them
> with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the
> geezers.
>
>
> BERNIE MADOFF:
> When Madoff's scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. New
> investors won't give him any more cash.
> SOCIAL SECURITY:
> When Social Security runs out of money they simply force the
> taxpayers
> to send them some more.
>
>
> BERNIE MADOFF:
> Bernie Madoff is in jail.
> SOCIAL SECURITY:
> Politicians remain in Washington.
Also:
Obama's Social Security Hoax
by Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- Everyone knows that the U.S. budget is being devoured by
entitlements. Everyone also knows that of the Big Three -- Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security -- Social Security is the most solvable.
Back-of-an-envelope solvable: Raise the retirement age, tweak the
indexing formula (from wage inflation to price inflation) and means-test
so that Warren Buffett's check gets redirected to a senior in need.
The relative ease of the fix is what makes the Obama administration's
Social Security strategy so shocking. The new line from the White House
is: no need to fix it because there is no problem. As Office of
Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few
weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social
Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.
This claim is a breathtaking fraud.
The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next
26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund
is a fiction.
If you don't believe me, listen to the OMB's own explanation (in the
Clinton administration budget for fiscal year 2000 under then-Director
Jack Lew, the very same). The OMB explained that these trust fund
"balances" are nothing more than a "bookkeeping" device. "They do not
consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to
fund benefits."
In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains -- nothing.
Here's why. When your FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck, it does
not get squirreled away in some lockbox in West Virginia where it's kept
until you and your contemporaries retire. Most goes out immediately to
pay current retirees, and the rest (say, $100) goes to the U.S. Treasury
-- and is spent. On roads, bridges, national defense, public television,
whatever -- spent, gone.
In return for that $100, the Treasury sends the Social Security
Administration a piece of paper that says: IOU $100. There are countless
such pieces of paper in the lockbox. They are called "special issue"
bonds.
Special they are: They are worthless. As the OMB explained, they are
nothing more than "claims on the Treasury (i.e., promises) that, when
redeemed (when you retire and are awaiting your check), will have to be
financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing
benefits or other expenditures." That's what it means to have a
so-called trust fund with no "real economic assets." When you retire,
the "trust fund" will have to go to the Treasury for the money for your
Social Security check.
Bottom line? The OMB again: "The existence of large trust fund balances,
therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the government's
ability to pay benefits." No impact: The lockbox, the balances, the
little pieces of paper, amount to nothing.
So that when Jack Lew tells you that there are trillions in this lockbox
that keep the system solvent until 2037, he is perpetrating a fiction
certified as such by his own OMB. What happens when you retire? Your
Social Security will come out of the taxes and borrowing of that fiscal
year.
Why is this a problem? Because as of 2010, the pay-as-you-go Social
Security system is in the red. For decades it had been in the black,
taking in more in FICA taxes than it sent out in Social Security
benefits. The surplus, scooped up by the Treasury, reduced the federal
debt by tens of billions. But demography is destiny. The ratio of
workers to retirees is shrinking year by year. Instead of Social
Security producing annual surpluses that reduce the federal deficit, it
is now producing shortfalls that increase the federal deficit -- $37
billion in 2010. It will only get worse as the baby boomers retire.
That's what makes this administration's claim that Social Security is
solvent so cynical. The Republicans have said that their April budget
will contain real entitlement reform. President Obama is preparing the
ground to demagogue Social Security right through the 2012 elections.
The ad writes itself: Those heartless Republicans don't just want to
throw granny in the snow, they want to throw granny in the snow to solve
a problem that doesn't even exist! Vote Obama.
On Tuesday, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia denounced Obama
for lack of leadership on the debt. It's worse than that. Obama is
showing leadership. With Lew's preposterous claim that Social Security
is solvent for 26 years, Obama is preparing to lead the charge against
entitlement reform as his ticket to re-election.