Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Bush's plan to forfeit your SS account profits

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Bush's plan to forfeit your SS account profits (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/82605-bushs-plan-forfeit-your-ss-account-profits.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

The trust funs has zero economic assets. It has a ton of money owed to it, but it has zero real dollars in it.

US government debt is an economic asset.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

No one is arguing that the trust fund has zero dollars in it (at least no one that has looked at the facts), the argument is how to we pay back the money.

I will argue with this. It has money. Does it have physical cash? Hell, your chequing account doesn't have cash in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

The money was borrowed from the trust fund and spent without any plan of paying it back.

Insofar as the US government borrows money for every single purpose under the sun, without any plan of paying it back, this is true.

This isn't a crisis of social security. This is a crisis of general government finantial mismanagement. The US congress is in massive deficit financing mode -- they are spending money hand over fist which they don't have.

The social security debt only makes the existing finanicial imprudence of the federal government even worse -- it is just one of many debts.

What GWB is describing is defaulting on trillions of dollars of US government debt. He's describing stealing from the social security fund, by zeroing it's assets, and using that to prop up a horribly leaking government finantial situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Read the posts in this thread. The trust fund has been discussed thoroughly, with plenty of factual evidence to back up the assertions.

I have read them. They consist of people disagreeing with you, and some agreeing with you. There has been no consensus reached. The issue sure looks open to me.

And calling your opponents "wacko" isn't polite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Well, I read this far and stopped.

Even for you, this is a little wacko.

I do not wish to participate in discussions that require me to don ye old tin foil cap.

Read the posts in this thread. The trust fund has been discussed thoroughly, with plenty of factual evidence to back up the assertions.

Yeah.....it's me....I'm the one who is misleading the thread by referring to the
Bushco policy of "scrubbing" government web pages !

Quote:

<a href="http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1803">http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1803</a>
WHITE HOUSE'S SEARCH ENGINE PRACTICES CAUSE CONCERN
Posted 28 Oct 2003 04:59:54 UTC

Quote:

4.30.2004
National :: Info On Women's Issues Removed From Government Websites

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration has stripped information on a range of women's issues from government Web sites, apparently in pursuit of a political agenda, researchers reported on Wednesday.

"Vital information is being deleted, buried, distorted and has otherwise gone missing from government Web sites and publications," Linda Basch, president of the National Council for Research on Women, said in a telephone interview.

Quote:

Democratic Lawmakers Accuse Bush Administration of Political Bias in Deleting Information From New CDC Condom Fact Sheet
[Dec 19, 2002] A group of 14 Democratic lawmakers yesterday sent a letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson accusing the Bush administration of "playing politics" by eliminating "key information" on condom use in a new fact sheet recently posted on the CDC Web site, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Led by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the lawmakers criticized the administration for eliminating from the fact sheet instructions on how to properly use a condom and information from studies indicating that educating young people about condom use does not foster earlier sexual activity. Both topics were covered in the original fact sheet created in 1996 during the Clinton administration (Ornstein, Los Angeles Times, 12/19). The lawmakers wrote, "The apparent purpose of these alterations and deletions is to remove information that conflicts with the administration's preference for 'abstinence-only' programs" (Letter text, 12/18).

The condom fact sheet previously said that abstaining from sex was the best way to prevent transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, but it also stated that "for those who have sexual intercourse, latex condoms are highly effective when used consistently and correctly." The new version of the fact sheet, which was posted on Dec. 2, includes in its introduction that condoms "can reduce the risk of STD transmission. However, no protective method is 100% effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD" (AP/Baltimore Sun, 12/19). The lawmakers also criticized the administration for altering a fact sheet concerning the alleged link between abortion and breast cancer. The previous version said that women who have an abortion were at "the same risk as other women for developing breast cancer." The new fact sheet says that "studies are inconsistent" on the association between abortion and breast cancer, according to the Times.

Waxman in late October wrote Thompson "chid[ing]" the Bush administration for removing the condom fact sheet from the CDC Web site altogether for more than a year and a half while officials updated it, according to the Times. "I think this is an Orwellian trend at HHS. Information that used to be based on science is being systematically removed from the public," Waxman said (Los Angeles Times, 12/19). Thompson responded to Waxman in a letter sent in late November that included responses to six requests made by Waxman. Thompson wrote that HHS "has a long tradition of employing the best scientific information for internal decision making" (Letter text, 11/27). The Times reports that Waxman and colleagues have "not been satisfied" with Thompson's responses (Los Angeles Times, 12/19). Dr. David Fleming, CDC's deputy director for science, defended the actions of the Bush administration, saying that the CDC chose a "more neutral" introduction for the condom fact sheet because of the "mixed evidence" on the issue. "This fact sheet is designed to be as scientifically accurate as possible. We specifically tried not to nuance it in the direction of either encouraging or discouraging use of condoms," Fleming said (AP/Baltimore Sun,12/19).
Reprinted from the Daily HIV/AIDS Report (Kaiser) www.kaisernetwork.org Friday, December 13, 2002 thru Thursday, December 19, 2002

<a href="http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/iraq-combat/">White House Alters Webpages About Iraq Combat</a>

I'd be happy to post 20 more examples when time permits.

The "tin foil cap" cliche is getting a bit long in the tooth, dontcha think?
Any excuse to avoid actually countering my points with references to
verifiable.....or contested sources !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Actually, it seems everybody agrees that there is a trust fund and that it holds no real assets, it holds liabilities. If I go to my bank right now, I can withdraw cash. If I went to the trust fund for cash, I would have to wait, because there isn't anything available. In order for the trust fund to fulfill my request, it would have to cash in on it's bonds.

The problem is how the trust fund becomes liquid again. SS and the trust fund have been used as a cash cow for years, but I have yet to see a tangible way of transferring the liabilities to liquid assets.

Bottom line (as I have said numerous times): The money was borrowed and spent without our approval and in order to replace that money, we, the American taxpayers, are going to have to foot the bill. Our government isn't going to foot the bill, they will pass it on to us. Which means that we will pay for it twice.

Anyway, as to the "wacko" thing. I called the assertion wacko, not the person. Did you not read the comment? That kind of stuff belongs in Paranoia, not here. And the assertion is made by someone that devotes an entire thread to questioning the mental health of people like me. I learned my lesson, Mr. Ignore button is now implemented so as to avoid this kinda of thing in the future.

"Yeah.....it's me....I'm the one who is misleading the thread by referring to the
Bushco"

No it's you misleading the thread, that was really getting pretty interesting, by stopping-down discussion of the actual problem at hand to slam the administration again.

(If it makes you feel better, I generally agree that they're wankers. Just like Clinton's group, and Bush Sr.'s earlier.)

-fibber

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Everyone does not agree. The trust fund holds real assets, as real as your ownership of stock in some company.

It holds bonds which represent debt of the US government, which it purchased in large quantities since the 80s, as planned.

If I go to my investment advisor, and ask for cash, I can't get it. I'd have to cash in my investments first. This does not mean there is are no real assets in my investment account.

US government bonds are pretty damn liquid. They could sell them on short notice, or at worst get an overnight loan while the sale goes through, and produce cash (or, lower-M money) as required.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

The problem is how the trust fund becomes liquid again. SS and the trust fund have been used as a cash cow for years, but I have yet to see a tangible way of transferring the liabilities to liquid assets.

It holds US government bonds (or was it some other debt asset?). You sell those bonds on the open market, or let then mateur and cash them in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Bottom line (as I have said numerous times): The money was borrowed and spent without our approval and in order to replace that money, we, the American taxpayers, are going to have to foot the bill. Our government isn't going to foot the bill, they will pass it on to us. Which means that we will pay for it twice.

No, you, the American people, approved of your government's spending habits. You elected representatives who spent that money.

Collectively, you are liable. It's called responsibility. And don't pretend they decieved the people of America with election promises -- look at the reelection rate in the senate and the US house.

Possibly the American people where negligent in their responsibilities, and didn't pay attention to what their representatives did, but you can't claim it was without their approval.

It isn't the SSA who is screwing up. It is the US congress, US senate and the US president, who collectively are spending the USA into debt. A debt which they are lieing about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Anyway, as to the "wacko" thing. I called the assertion wacko, not the person. Did you not read the comment? That kind of stuff belongs in Paranoia, not here. And the assertion is made by someone that devotes an entire thread to questioning the mental health of people like me. I learned my lesson, Mr. Ignore button is now implemented so as to avoid this kinda of thing in the future.

/shrug, the current administration has been known to change or delete US government published data that disagrees with their policies. That isn't tinfoil hat stuff. I can come up with citations if you request.

There is a pig-in-the-python demographic problem. There is a US-government financial mismanagement problem. Claiming that those problems are a problem of SS is both useless and disenginuous.

The US government taking the SSA trust fund, and zeroing it, is the same as a company taking a pension fund (possibly invested in company stock) and folding it into general revenue. It's accounting fraud, theft from the people with a stake in the fund, and immoral.

You have to realize, accounting is real -- "it is just accounting" is about as ignorant a financial statement you can make. Your bank account is just numbers. Debt is just numbers. Ownership of a company is just numbers. Everything you own, everything you owe, the lubrication of the entire world economy -- it is numbers in some computer somewhere. Those numbers all represent real obligations. Failure to live up to these obligations is theft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

I like to think that I'm in good company, as far as "devoting an entire thread to questioning the mental health of people" who support and/or work for
Bush and his administration, but either refuse or are incapable of mounting
an argument that is well founded in verifiable facts that make a case that it
it is in their own best interest, and that of the country's, to do it. I did not single you out as someone who fits that description.

Here's a well respected journalist and commentator who seems to be making
similar observations and comments about delusional politicians and their
supporters as I did in my "mental health" thread. Go figure......

Quote:

<a href="http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1149">Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow</a>
Bill Moyers
January 30, 2005 MOYERS

Editor's note: please note correction link <a href="http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000797041">here</a>

One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.

Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts....................

Quote:

Originally Posted by fibber

fibber, thank you for "defusing" the tone of your post at the end.....
Please consider that I got involved because I posted a "reasonable" reaction
to this, displayed in Post #95..... , and I'd do it again, if Bush persists in
deliberately misleading the citizenry as to the SSA trust fund's assets !

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWB
Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust. We're on the ultimate pay-as-you-go system -- what goes in comes out. And so, starting in 2018, what's going in -- what's coming out is greater than what's going in. It says we've got a problem. And we'd better start dealing with it now. The longer we wait, the harder it is to fix the problem.

It's cool, I usually have no problems with your arguments, just their delivery sometimes.

On topic, I read some article earlier this morning on how the bond idea resembles one McGovern proposed before the '78 election. I really dig McGovern as I always felt he was a bit above the ultra-partisan mentality, and it struck me as odd seeing a similar proposal from someone who was labled as "too left" by many to even get the big D. nomination in '78.

I'll try and find it again.

-fibber