Oh, get real. Republicans have been opposed to SS since it first came to
the US. All today's rhetoric is right out of Hoover's playbook
All the same adverse claims we hear today from the right, I heard 50 years
The 80-Year Conservative War On Social Security Is Back For More
Social Security, in more ways than one the mother of all U.S. entitlement
programs, has been the dragon that conservatives have succeeded in
slashing, but never slaying, over its 80-year history. Their opposition
has morphed from outright ideological grounds as the program was being
debated during the New Deal era to a campaign masked in careful rhetoric
once Social Security became virtually untouchable as a political animal.
But the program has never been perceived by the left as an existential
threat the way it has been by many on the right. To understand where
conservatives are now, you have to understand how they got there. The
following is derived in large part from "The Battle for Social
Security," authored by Social Security Works's co-director Nancy Altman,
and TPM's own consultations with other experts on the program.
The conservative thought was to replace it with something that would
grow. Not just cancel it. Taking a dollar and keeping it a dollar
for your life time is not good for you. It doesn't earn interest or
dividend and the value of the dollar declines. So SS as defined isn't
really working very well.
Again your ignorance of the facts, and the actual law, is showing.
As I clearly stated earlier: by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in
'Flemming v. Nestor', SCOTUS clearly states, among other things with
regard to SS, that ***there is no contractual agreement between taxpayer
You're wrong ... keep digging your hole.
Which refers to _individual_ rights - not Trust Fund rights
Individuals do not have a *contractual* right to SS payments. The bonds
purchased by the Trust Fund, however, ARE binding contracts. Just as
*you* would have a binding contract for any Treasury Bills that you
Wrong again, dim one. The Full Faith and Credit clause applies to
debt. The trust fund is *NOT* debt. Your benefits are NOT subject to
FF&C. It's not a debt. It's a tax and a benefit (and two unrelated
things, at that) that can be changed with a simple majority of
congress. FF&C takes a little more work to amend (though Obama
doesn't care about little things like the Constitution).
Wrong again, dog breath. It is you who has a problem thinking. Like
all lefties, you've taken the full lethal dose of the left's Kool Aid,
Prove that the _securities_ held by the SS Trust do not enjoy the same
protection as any other security issued by the US Treasury.
In fact, they enjoy *greater* protection:
The Social Security trust funds are invested entirely in U.S. Treasury
securities. Like the Treasury bills, notes, and bonds purchased by
private investors around the world, the Treasury securities that the
trust funds hold are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.
government. The U.S. government has never defaulted on its obligations,
and investors consider U.S. government securities to be one of the
world?s safest investments.
The Treasury securities held by the trust funds have some special
features that make them even more attractive investments than other
Treasury securities. First, the trust funds? investments do not
fluctuate in value and can always be redeemed at par. Even if the
securities must be redeemed early, Social Security is guaranteed not to
lose money on its investment.
Is Trust Fund Debt Real If It?s Not Part of Debt Held by the Public?
Yes. Budget experts generally focus on debt held by the public ? which
reflects what the government must borrow in private credit markets and
which excludes trust fund holdings ? as the most useful measure of
federal debt for economic analysis. Some have argued that it is
inconsistent to adopt that focus while simultaneously viewing the debt
held by Social Security as real. This argument is incorrect: both
measures of debt are important, but they measure different things.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.