Smoke and Mirrors

First let’s look at the Dept. of Defense. Bush is asking for $466 Billion. That amount DOES NOT include any money to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for FY 2007. The estimate for that is $100 Billion. The CoS of the Army has said that the Army is under funded by at least $20 Billion for FY 2007. That would bring the amount for DoD to $586 Billion NOT $466 Billion as Bush shows in the budget. We now have a budget deficit of $344 Billion.

Your ignorance is glaring! Wars are not budgeted items because no one can know the cost until it is spent. The same is done with disaster relief funds.

Next Bush subtracts the $200 Billion annual surplus from Social Security and Medicare from the budget even though they are SEPARATE trust funds supported by separate taxes and paid to only people eligible for those benefits. Thus Bush has understated the actual budget deficit by another $200 Billion for FY 2007.

This is done because the Democrats raided the trillion dollars of social security money to pay for Vietnam, the war on poverty, and the Great Society projects. If you don't order them seperate and the congress wants the money they put in IOU's like they did in the 60's that the government can't repay now. What the President correctly did was save Social Security from being raped again.

Now the 2007 budget deficit is $544 Billion NOT $224 Billion. This administration does things in a BIG way. The lies about the budget and Iraq are WOPPERS. We need honesty from our government! I hope the Democrats will FORCE Bush to submit accurate information in the future!

Yeah right! The reason Social Security is in such bad shape is because of the Democrats, talk about woppers, look at all the crap you believe as facts!

Paladin, none of that made any sense at all.

If we can project that the war will cost 100 billion next year, why isn't that amount budgeted in? Even if it is off, it still provides a much more accurate projection of what our outlays will be next year. The bills still arrive in the end whether we write the costs into the budget or not. You can't crow about cutting the deficit in half (such as Bush supporters are wont to do) when you are lying about the amount you are actually spending.

Your second paragraph doesn't make any sense at all. I notice that you didn't actually refute the point that the budget deficit is being underreported by 200 billion - just sought to explain it away by blaming it on Democrats. Not good enough.

Your third paragraph - once again, it doesn't matter what Democrats may have done in the past; the budget deficit is still massively under-reported.

This is one reason I believe that we would have a hard time balancing the budget without raising taxes - the budget is inherently flawed.

If we can project that the war will cost 100 billion next year, why isn't that amount budgeted in? Even if it is off, it still provides a much more accurate projection of what our outlays will be next year. The bills still arrive in the end whether we write the costs into the budget or not. You can't crow about cutting the deficit in half (such as Bush supporters are wont to do) when you are lying about the amount you are actually spending.

Cycloptichorn,

Your points are well taken. Allow me to explain if I can. A budget is a priority list of how you will spend your money based on the money you think you will receive in the future. You budget your money based on your pay check if you use a budget at all. You know as long as you have your job you will have 200 dollars a week coming in what do you need to spend that money on? Housing, transportation, food, clothes and so on. Does your budget include money for hurricanes, tornados, fire, or flooding? No they usually do not because they are not a regular occurrence. Each year the government budgets for its normal operations, it does set aside some money for disasters but usually that money for the whole year is wiped out on the first disaster of the year and they have to borrow for the next one. The projections for the government budget is if all goes as well as last year and factoring in 10% growth we will have “x” number of dollars in the treasury. If that continues at the end of ten years we will have ten trillion dollars in the treasury. Those projections do not include war, disasters natural or man made changes in the economy up or down. The money is not collected or in the treasury it is just a guess if everything goes well this is what we will have.
Budgets are necessary for the government but it is not set in stone. It is a best guess and if all works out this much money will be spent on the military, that much will be spent on education and so on. Anything not covered by the budget is taken care of out of the general fund as needed. That is where the war money and disaster money come from. Now when we tax people it is to support the government and its budget. Any extra is a surplus, anything less than the budget is a shortfall. Since the tax cuts have taken effect we have not had a short fall but a surplus. This surplus has been spent on the war, and the disasters around the nation. Even with that we are still paying down the debt three years ahead of schedule as of last year. The budget year starts in October and ends in September of each year.
Now contrast that with the last time we tried to tax our way out of a recession. This was done by President Carter. For the first time in our history we had double digit inflation. I was working back then. Interest rates were at 21% and that was prime not market.
When Mr. Reagan took office four years later it was assumed that the only way to get ahead of the problem with the shortfall was to raise taxes even more. Mr. Reagan cut taxes almost doubled military spending to counter the Soviets and the first few years we looked like we would be in serious trouble with a 5 trillion dollar deficit “projection” By the time Mr. Clinton took office 12 years later that projection was down to a few hundred billion dollars. By the time Mr. Clinton left office we had a projection of 10 trillion dollar surplus that the Democrats wanted to spend on everything under the sun. The problem was Mr. Clinton raised taxes and even admitted he raised them too much. We started to spiral into a recession again. Mr. Bush cut the taxes and ended the spiral. And instead of 5 to 10 years of spiraling inflation it was cut to 1% interest rates dropped like a stone. The last time we had interest rates this low was 1960 like when Mr. Kennedy cut taxes back then the market interest rate was 6% we are currently at 6.5% and that was after 4 years of increases. If I remember correctly we were down to 4. something at one time and now we are going up.

So to answer your question, the budget is not a lie; it is a list of how and where we are going to spend the money we are mostly sure we will have by the end of the fiscal year, and to ensure that all vital services are covered. It is by no means the total money we will take in or spend for the year. When I was in the service part of my job was to submit the budget for my unit. How much money will my unit need for the next year? I will need so much for fuel, so much for ammunition, so much for training and so on. This goes up the chain and is added together with the other units and that is how the Marine Corps budget starts. It is then given to the Navy and they add what they need and then that is sent to the Secretary of Defense who submits the budget for the entire military. War is not and never has been a budget item.

This also answers the so called under reporting of the budget.

The deficit is a tricky thing. The deficit is money spent on things that we don’t have money in the treasury for. The war is not included in this area either. It comes out of the general fund but I will touch on that later. If in August we have a hurricane and FEMA is called in to help, money out of their budget is used for their people only, the money for the actual help comes out of the general fund. If FEMA runs out of operating funds the government borrows money to cover the shortfall in the budget. It does not come out of the general fund. At the end of the year everyone accounts for the money spent all extra money is sent to pay off debts. FEMA may over spend this year but HUD is under budget by 100 million dollars, that money is moved over to FEMA. Meaning that it is used to pay back the loan. Each fiscal quarter the money is given to each government agency per the budget so we won’t know if we are running out of money until the last quarter. If people don’t pay their taxes and we have several disasters and a war and who knows what else we have a serious deficit. Money is borrowed to cover the budget. 9/11 was one of those times when we borrowed huge amounts of money because no one expected to start Homeland Security, the TSA and beef up all the other departments and agencies within government. Keep in mind the tax cuts took effect in 2002 I think, and by 2004 we were ahead in paying back the projected ten year deficit of 10 trillion dollars. Even with hurricane Katrina, by 2006 we were three years ahead of cutting the deficit in half. This means we not only had enough money to cover our budget projections but also had money to pay down the actual not projected debit. It is called voodoo economics for a reason. It works each time it is tried and the liberals still can’t understand it so it must be some kind of magic because all they know is if you want more money to spend you have to raise taxes. In reality if you have an entrepreneur nation like ours the less people pay in taxes the more jobs are created meaning more workers paying taxes. So yes people pay less but there are more of them. Like Wal-Mart with their low prices. Instead of taking in more dollars they take in a few pennies but because everyone sees the savings there, more people shop and buy so instead of making millions they make billions.

Then you have the general fund. This is money that is in the treasury and is not supposed to be spent without approval from Congress. Social Security is one of the general fund items. Back in 1966 the Congress did not have enough money to spend on the great society of Mr. Johnson and the war in Vietnam. They did not want to raise taxes to cover the war that was so unpopular so they took the trillion dollars that was supposed to be set aside in the General Fund put in an IOU and then began to spend like drunken sailors. This is the reason that Social Security was going broke. The money that was set aside for our retirement was spent in 1966 through 1968 and to make that money back they raised taxes a little bit each year throwing the system into a tail spin. By the time Mr. Carter took office the system was broken. To try to repair it he raised taxes again. Raising taxes never works, cutting taxes has always worked. It would work faster it the idiots in Congress would stop spending money on crap. I am not picking on the Democrats I am pointing out that the Democratic Presidents have done things to fix the economy that don’t work. The Congress holds the purse strings and it was hoped that having a Republican majority would bring spending down. It has but not enough and now with the Democrats taking over the Congress again I fear for my wallet.

Paladin 77

Are you stupid or do you defend Bush no matter what? After operating in Iraq for 4 years, DOD has a VERY good estimate as to how much it will cost. If we follow your argument, HOW do they come up with the amount for the Supplemental Budget request? That is estimated for the upcoming year. They just asked for $99.7 Billion. Hell they got the amount they will need it to a tenth of a Billion. The reason Bush does not include the money for Iraq in the budget request is he wants the budget to appear smaller.

Subtracting the current Surplus from Social Security and Medicare from the budget deficit has NOTHING to do with HOW money was spent in the past. Bush has used more of the Social Security and Medicare Surplus then anyone to fund the Budget deficit he created. The ONLY reason Bush subtracts that $200 Billion Surplus generated by Social Security and Medicare is to make it appear that the budget deficit is smaller.

Today Social Security is in fine shape and in 2005 had a REAL surplus of $175 Billion Dollars. Medicare had a Surplus of about $25 Billion. The problem with Social Security and Medicare is the large number of people that will retire when the Baby Boomers born after WWII retire. You show that you know NOTHING about what the Social Security problem is or how to address this issue.

Paladin 77

Your logic or lack of it is glaring. You claim we can not budget for unknowns like storms and thus can not budget for the operations in Iraq. That is pure BS. First, we know or are dam sure that we will be fighting in Iraq in 2007. Thus the Iraq War is not as you claim an UNKNOWN.

Second, even when insurance companies can not predict specific losses from things like storms, they set aside estimates to cover possible losses. They do not make believe that no storms will ever take place.

I have not decided if some on JoeUser are just stupid or if they are so desperate to defend Bush that they pore out pure BS in an effort to defend his failed policies!

This is a good Budget Summary:

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Wow, a Col JIhad title without Bush in it. You almost got me!

Are you stupid or do you defend Bush no matter what? After operating in Iraq for 4 years, DOD has a VERY good estimate as to how much it will cost. If we follow your argument, HOW do they come up with the amount for the Supplemental Budget request? That is estimated for the upcoming year. They just asked for $99.7 Billion. Hell they got the amount they will need it to a tenth of a Billion. The reason Bush does not include the money for Iraq in the budget request is he wants the budget to appear smaller.

Though you ignored what I wrote I will try to answer you, again. The supplemental is not for the year it is until it runs out and they submit another. It gives Congress and the President a heads up and a ball park figure. It is not exact. The money comes from the General Fund no the standard budget. If memory serves there is several trillion dollars in the General Fund. Look at Mr. Clinton's budgets while we were in the Balkins, you won't see that money in the budget because is it submitted as a supplemental. So either your hero did what Mr. Bush did and they are both wrong or it is normal opperating procedure. No smoke and mirrors this is the way it is done. The Manhattan project was also done on a supplemental request. What I am saying is that there are severl sets of books kept by the government and you are mixing them up. Does it help to make the budget look smaller? Sure.

Subtracting the current Surplus from Social Security and Medicare from the budget deficit has NOTHING to do with HOW money was spent in the past. Bush has used more of the Social Security and Medicare Surplus then anyone to fund the Budget deficit he created. The ONLY reason Bush subtracts that $200 Billion Surplus generated by Social Security and Medicare is to make it appear that the budget deficit is smaller.

What surplus? There is no surplus, Social Security has been in the hole since the mid 70's The surplus you speek of is the repayment of the loans Congress made back in the 60's.

Today Social Security is in fine shape and in 2005 had a REAL surplus of $175 Billion Dollars. Medicare had a Surplus of about $25 Billion. The problem with Social Security and Medicare is the large number of people that will retire when the Baby Boomers born after WWII retire. You show that you know NOTHING about what the Social Security problem is or how to address this issue.

You miss the point, no surprise, Social Security is in deep trouble. I gave you the reason it is in trouble. Currently we are paying the people on Social Security with the money collected this year becaue the money that was paid into Social Security was stolen, misused, or taken by Congress to fund projects decades ago and was never paid back. The problem is there are fewer workers paying into Social Security and by mid century not enough people will be paying into the fund to pay the people the government promised to pay. At one time there was more than enough money to pay the benifits but because of mismanagement of the money we are going to fall short. By cutting taxes there is now more money in the account and Mr. Bush is making good on the IOU's from 40 years ago. We were supposed to run out of money by 2005 now they project there will be enough money till 2010 in 4 years we made enough money to add 5 years to the life of Social Security. If things continue the way they are we will have repaid the money stolen by 2075 if things change like tax hikes then all bets are off.

Your logic or lack of it is glaring. You claim we can not budget for unknowns like storms and thus can not budget for the operations in Iraq. That is pure BS. First, we know or are dam sure that we will be fighting in Iraq in 2007. Thus the Iraq War is not as you claim an UNKNOWN.

Sure it is. If we increase forces the cost goes up, if we reduce forces the cost goes down, and as I said before you are talking two sets of books and mixing them up. Up until recreantly we were talking of reducing the force in Iraq. Because of this fluctuation it does not go on the federal budget. The general fund handles this money.

Second, even when insurance companies can not predict specific losses from things like storms, they set aside estimates to cover possible losses. They do not make believe that no storms will ever take place.

Right, I lived through hurrican Andrew. Andrew caused about 100 billion in damages. The money set aside by insurance companies was short by about 75 billion dollars, remember all the insurance companies that went broke and some went out of business completely without paying a nickle, the government had to bail them out? Wait, the government did not budget for that either I wonder where the money came from?

Paladin 77 you are just DUMB. I ran this on Social Security and you are DEAD WRONG. Last year Social Security took in $175 Billion MORE then it paid out in benefits.

Paulson Trying Same Old Non-Solution for Social Security!

By COL Gene
Posted Saturday, December 09, 2006 on Bush Truth
Discussion: Politics



Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is trying to revive the Bush plan to privatize Social Security. Even if there is some possibility that the private accounts invested in equities could boost benefits in the future, that change does NOT solve the problem at hand which is HOW TO PAY the benefits to the Baby Boomers!

The Bush plan that Paulson is pushing actually makes the current problem of paying the promised benefits to the Boomers WORSE. That is because the money that the Bush plan would divert into the private accounts for the X and Y generation workers has been promised to help pay the Boomer benefits. Thus, by diverting some of the Social Security taxes into private accounts for the generations that follow the Boomers (X and Y), the problems of paying the Baby Boomers gets much worse. We add to the current shortfall all the money that would be diverted to the private accounts.

The Trustees of Social Security have said that the private accounts will not fix the problem of HOW to pay the promised benefits to the Baby Boomers. Thus what Secretary Paulson is trying again to sell is a NON-SOLUTION to the issue at hand. There is NO evidence that the problem of paying benefits to the generations AFTER the Boomers is a Problem. At the present time, Social Security can not only pay ALL the promised benefits but is generating a real surplus which in 2005, that last year we have firm data, showed a $175 Billion Dollar surplus. The problem develops when the large number of retired, born after WWII, change the picture from 3.5 workers for every one retired to 2.0 workers for every one retired. However after the Baby Boomers pass, the demographics of the X and Y generations is similar to the current situation and there is every reason to believe that after the Baby Booms pass the funding problem with Social Security ends.

In no event should the Bush plan be adopted for the very basic reason that IT DOES NOT SOLVE the problem of HOW to pay the PROMISED benefits to the Baby Boomers!

To fix the problem at hand, we need to be begin taxing ALL earned income for Social Security the same as we do for Medicare and invest that added revenue in diverse equity investments to increase the Trust fund. That added money would then be used to fund the Baby Boomer shortfall. A second change is to gradually increase the retirement age for full benefits to age 70. Finally, look at the elements that are used for the Social Security COLA. Only elements that generally impact the retired should be used to adjust the amount of future Social Security benefits. Some of the elements that make up the “Basket of Goods and Services” have little or nothing to do with most retired Americans. Things such as the cost of food, clothing, energy, gasoline, insurance and local taxes are among the major elements that dilute the Social Security benefits. Changing the basket of goods and services used to adjust Social Security Benefits could increase or decrease the adjustment from the current COLA. The overriding issue should be to make adjustments that are justified to keep future Social Security benefits the same AFTER cost increases that impact the majority of retied Americans

Paladin 77 you are just DUMB. I ran this on Social Security and you are DEAD WRONG. Last year Social Security took in $175 Billion MORE then it paid out in benefits.

Great! 175 billion dollars to help pay back 10 trillion dollars taken from the fund. You mistake the history lesson for a solution which I did not offer. The real solution is to have private accounts so Congress won't have access to the money any more. The private accounts will help the people 10 years younger than myself, but not help me or people of my generation. If we go to private accounts it will help take some of the strain off the system. Keep in mind that only 2% of the Social Security witholdign will go into private accounts, but over a 20 or 30 year career will add up to a nice sum. Keep in mind that Social Security was supposed to be a stop gap tha lead to private accounts when it was first proposed by Mr. Roosevelt.

Paladin 77

Again you do not know what you are talking about. All the money has been paid to People that were retired except for the Trust Fund of about 1.6 Trillion. That is the money the Fed has used to cover the annual budget deficits and given the Social Security Fund IOU'S. Bush is the president that is responsible for much of those IOU's. There is no $10 Trillion that was wasted. The reason Social Security does not have a larger Trust Fund to help bridge the Baby Boomers is that when the system was started in 1935 there was NO money placed into the fund to pay the benefits of the first several generations that received benefits. To have fully funded Social Security would have required Trillions to have been put into the Trust Fund in 1935 from which benefits for our parents and grandparents were paid. They were benefits they did not contribute to .

The private accounts have NOTHING to do with the problem and in fact since that approach would divert some money that is currently pledged for the Baby Boomers it would make a BAD situation even worse. The Social Security Trustees have stated that the private accounts WILL NOT SOLV E the Baby Boomer benefits issue!

Again you do not know what you are talking about. All the money has been paid to People that were retired except for the Trust Fund of about 1.6 Trillion. That is the money the Fed has used to cover the annual budget deficits and given the Social Security Fund IOU'S. Bush is the president that is responsible for much of those IOU's. There is no $10 Trillion that was wasted. The reason Social Security does not have a larger Trust Fund to help bridge the Baby Boomers is that when the system was started in 1935 there was NO money placed into the fund to pay the benefits of the first several generations that received benefits. To have fully funded Social Security would have required Trillions to have been put into the Trust Fund in 1935 from which benefits for our parents and grandparents were paid. They were benefits they did not contribute to .

You believe this because you wish to give the Democrats a pass for thier stupid moves of the past. The money was taken to pay for the Great Society, and the Vietnam war while Mr. Johnson was in office. That money was never paid back which is the reason for the shortfall. The Congress at the timme knew it would be a problem but they would be reired or dead before anyone noticed what happend. Just like you now wanting to blame tax cuts and baby boomers. The money was there to cover the baby Boomers.

The private accounts have NOTHING to do with the problem and in fact since that approach would divert some money that is currently pledged for the Baby Boomers it would make a BAD situation even worse. The Social Security Trustees have stated that the private accounts WILL NOT SOLV E the Baby Boomer benefits issue!

No one has said it would solve the problem. It will keep the government hands out of the money so it will be there for people when they need it.

That is the money the Fed has used to cover the annual budget deficits and given the Social Security Fund IOU'S. Bush is the president that is responsible for much of those IOU's.

Ok, Please explain to me how money taken in 1965-1967 is the current presidents fault or responsibility? Yes, the Government took the money but he was not in office when it happened. Try doing the research and try a site that is not a hate site. Try the Congressional record of the time. Oops, that would mean you would have to admit that the Democratic President, and Congress of the time did the deed. Were Republicans involved? Yes, but they were not in a majority at the time it happened.

Paladin 77

You are dead wrong. There were changes to Social Security to include payments for children but Congress changed the tax structure of Social Security to provide the funding to pay the added benefits to Social Security. The proof of that is the fact that even with the added benefits you talk about the system today is not only solvent but is producing MORE tax Dollars then it pays out in benefits. If it were not for the abnormal number of people born after WWII, we would not be facing the shortfall in the future. Today we have about 3.5 people working and paying taxes for every person retired. That will drop to about 2 people working for every retired because of the Baby Boomers. The money collected from Social Security Taxes has been paid to those the law provided for and was not used for other things. You seem to object to the additional benefits that were added but since the tax structure was adjusted to fund those added benefits that is NOT the problem we face in paying the Boomers their retirement benefits.

What has been used by the government is the excess money that is held in the Trust Fund. That has been used to help fund the annual budget deficit. Bush is the biggest reason for that and I do not believe he is a Democrat.

Paladin 77

The issue is finding a solution to how we pay the benefits promised to the Boomers. If the private accounts, as you admit., not only does not solve that problem but makes the funding problem worse, we can not do something that will not make the funding issue worse. The issue is NOT the government using the Social Security Money for other things. In fact the annual Budget Deficit would not be eliminated by creating private accounts. In fact, it could make the problem worse if we need to begin taking money from the General Fund Budget to supplement the money for Social Security payments to the Boomers. The money Bush would divert to private accounts is promised to help pay Social Security Retirement and diverting these funds makes the Boomer problem much worse!

Paladin 77

There was NO money taken from Social Security from 65-67. When the Fed has used any of the Surpluses to fund the budget like Bush is doing today, they issue Bonds for that money. The problem will be when these bonds must be repaid to pay for future benefits. That however is not because of Social Security it is because we refuse to BALANCE THE ANNUAL BUDGET by taxing as much as we spend! There is about $1.6 Trillion of those bonds from the Fed that make up the Social Security Trust Fund. There were benefits added. I have already explained that Congress increased the Social Security taxes to pay for those changes. What you are talking about has been fixed a long time ago.

The issue is finding a solution to how we pay the benefits promised to the Boomers. If the private accounts, as you admit., not only does not solve that problem but makes the funding problem worse, we can not do something that will not make the funding issue worse.

I never said it makes the problem worse. The solution is to keep the Governments hands out of the Social Security fund. Private accounts do not make the problem worse that conclusion is another lie told to keep the system in crisis.

The issue is NOT the government using the Social Security Money for other things.

You are wrong, that is the reason the fund is short money.

In fact the annual Budget Deficit would not be eliminated by creating private accounts.

I am starting to understand what you are saying. Why fix the problem when we can just let it fall apart. Due to your stadfast desire to avoid the truth you missed the minor fact that Socical Security is not a budget item. Now we will have to dip into the budget to pay back the money stolen in order to pay benifits but that is as far as it goes.

In fact, it could make the problem worse if we need to begin taking money from the General Fund Budget to supplement the money for Social Security payments to the Boomers.

Ok, maybe you don't understand how it works and you are not interested in learning how it works.

The money Bush would divert to private accounts is promised to help pay Social Security Retirement and diverting these funds makes the Boomer problem much worse!

Sorry fella, no money would be diverted into private accounts by the government. The money would be diverted by the owners of the account. So what you are saying is that people have no right to do anything with their own money and that people should not be given a say in how their money is spent. You are also suggesting that it is better to pour money into a system that does not work so they can not have it to spend.

There was NO money taken from Social Security from 65-67.

Ok if you believe that, then we are at that stage again where you ignore the truth in favor of a myth. I am sure you also believe in the Easter Bunny. As I stated before it is a matter of public record. The Congressional Record. You know the official documents of the United States Congress. not some wacky left or right wing group.

That however is not because of Social Security it is because we refuse to BALANCE THE ANNUAL BUDGET by taxing as much as we spend! There is about $1.6 Trillion of those bonds from the Fed that make up the Social Security Trust Fund.

Very good, you still don't believe that Congress stole the money but the President is responsible for Social Security going broke. If you try, you might remember that was a part of Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore's speeches during the 2000 election on how they were going to try and save the system, meaning that it was known to be going broke long before Mr. Bush took office. I think Mr. Gore might call this an inconvenient truth. lol As I stated before Social Security is not supposed to be touched by the budget in any way. That money is supposed to be collected and held for Social Security payments only.

I have already explained that Congress increased the Social Security taxes to pay for those changes. What you are talking about has been fixed a long time ago.

If you want a quick fix for Social Security why not get rid of the taxes that people on Social Security have to pay? That would give them a pay raise without costing a dime.

What you are talking about has been fixed a long time ago.

If that is true then why is it that during the 2000 elections they were saying that the fund would be broke by 2005?

If it were not for the abnormal number of people born after WWII, we would not be facing the shortfall in the future. Today we have about 3.5 people working and paying taxes for every person retired. That will drop to about 2 people working for every retired because of the Baby Boomers. The money collected from Social Security Taxes has been paid to those the law provided for and was not used for other things. You seem to object to the additional benefits that were added but since the tax structure was adjusted to fund those added benefits that is NOT the problem we face in paying the Boomers their retirement benefits.

Sorry but I never said anything about added benefits, you must have me confused with someone just as smart as me but it was not me. Also, there used to be 25 workers paying in to support one retiree, that would create a huge surplus, now there is 3.5 supporting a retiree that is a significant drop don't you think? Here is a one for you, I got this from Rush Limbaugh's site.

The president traveled the country to warn that his generation's impending retirement, 76 million people would bankrupt the generations to follow. 'It would be unconscionable if we failed to act,' The President said at a forum he made fixing the nation's retirement program a top priority. The President appointed a bipartisan commission which delivered three options to save the program. They included a now familiar list of possible benefit cuts from changing indexing formulas to changing the retirement age, and one of the options would allow workers to divert five percentage points of their payroll taxes to personal accounts, the first such proposal by a government commission. The President started campaigning for changes without saying what he endorsed. 'I don't want to dodge any of that,' he said. 'but if I advocate a specific plan right now, then all the debate will be about that. First thing we gotta do is get the American people solidly lined up behind change.'

What do you think of that?

Paladin 77

If you do not have enough money to pay all your bills and someone takes money away, you are further from being able to pay your bills. That is what will happen if some of the Social Security Taxes go from paying benefits to the Boomers to private accounts for the X and Y Generations. If you want to get the Fed out of the Social Security Fund, we must balance the budget and STOP using the surplus from Social Security to help balance the budget the way Bush has done.

With the 3.5 People working for every retired the Social Security system is JUST FINE. The Proof is the $175 Billion Dollar Surplus Social Security generated last year with 3.5 People working for every person retired. The problem in the future comes when that 3.5 drops to 2.0 because of the Boomers.

You do not have the most basic understanding of what is causing the funding problem with Social Security!!!!

Paladin 77

If you cut Social Security taxes now as you suggest, Social Security would have to stop paying benefits to the current population that is retired. That would mean millions of retired would stop spending and the economy would end up in a Depression.

You sir are an IDIOT!

If you cut Social Security taxes now as you suggest, Social Security would have to stop paying benefits to the current population that is retired. That would mean millions of retired would stop spending and the economy would end up in a Depression. You sir are an IDIOT!

Ok, maybe I was not clear on this point I will try again. People on Social Security have to pay taxes on the money they receive. That is what I wish to cut.

With the 3.5 People working for every retired the Social Security system is JUST FINE.

If it is just fine then why is it the President, as I quoted in my last post, was trying to fix social security and trying to keep it from going broke? Answer that one and maybe I will begin to understand what you are saying. Those same estimates that said there would be a surplus that never really was says the SS fund would be broke by 2005. It would seem that President Bush saved that from happening.

Paladin77

The issue is that when the large number of Boomers retire, that 3.5 drops to 2.0. At that point in the future the taxes that will be paid by the 2.0 workers will only pay 75% of the benefits for the 1 retired person. What Bush proposed is to allow younger workers ( Not Boomers because they are too old to build a separate account) to set aside money that is promised to help pay the Boomer Retirement. That makes the problem WORSE not better. That is why what Bush suggests is not a solution.

If we can find a way to replace the lost revenue from taxing Social Security Benefits I would agree with what you suggest. However is we just eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits (85% if you income is above a certain level) we simple increase the Annual Budget Deficit.

The issue is that when the large number of Boomers retire, that 3.5 drops to 2.0. At that point in the future the taxes that will be paid by the 2.0 workers will only pay 75% of the benefits for the 1 retired person. What Bush proposed is to allow younger workers ( Not Boomers because they are too old to build a separate account) to set aside money that is promised to help pay the Boomer Retirement. That makes the problem WORSE not better. That is why what Bush suggests is not a solution.

It seems that the President with his tax cuts has come up with a surplus by your accounts. Something that was not happening before. The people that are supposed to get their benefits cut because of the short fall are the ones that voted in the idiots that stole their money. Next time people might want to pay attention to whom is elected. How can it make the situation worse? Private accounts are only made up from 2% of the SS taxes collected by individule. Hell, President Clinton proposed 5% in private accounts to solve the problem when it was reported that the SS fund would go broke in 2005. This is what I mean by you don't understand the problem. Every responsible president has proposed private accounts since Mr. Roosevelt was in office. And yes, in this case even Mr. Clinton was responsible. Mr. Carter did not propose this because the entire nation was going broke under his watch. I don't hate Democrats in office I hate that they create a problem then blame others for it when they can't solve it using thier ideas. Clinton stole from everyone so if it worked he would propose it. The Democrats in Congress shot that down becaue of the impeachment stuff, it would give the Republicans two wins instead of one. (politics)

However is we just eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits (85% if you income is above a certain level) we simple increase the Annual Budget Deficit.

So what I get from this is it is ok to take money away from the people that earned it but not ok to cut benefits. Is that what you are saying?

Paladin 77

The surplus in Social Security existed BEFORE Bush became president. The Bush Tax Cut has NOTHING to do with generating a Surplus in Social Security. Bush has used the Surplus from Social Security to cover PART of the Annual Budget Deficit he created by his Federal Income Tax cuts and increased general fund spending i.e. the Iraq war!

Paladin 77

What I am saying is that if we stop taxing Social Security Benefits we NEED to replace that lost revenue. I would like to see an end to taxing Social Security benefits. If we end the Bush tax cuts to the top 10% we could use some of that money to end the tax on Social Security Benefits.