Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question 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. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Let me know if you figure out what that means.

Jim

The sad part is when the ability to create money out of thin air stops and the fantasy stops the boomers and gen xers will blame it on the youth when in reality it was their fault.

Social security has always been "borrowed from". The collected money has never been set aside and not spent. Never. Never.

There has always been more taken in than was paid out. Even when SSI was created. That may change. I believe its why illegal immigration is allowed. Not even Trump wants to stop it. New workers are needed to pay into SS. Working Americans are not having enough kids. Low income welfare types are having them.

The money has never been set aside it isn't there. Every time the printing press is fired up the dollar is worth less. It needs fired up now and again as fiat currency only works with debt. To much debt all at once will collapse it though.

I am enjoying my popcorn.

I don't blame it on any one, if I did the blame would go to the dead folks that started US down this rosey path. My question is if I buy into a Plan based on imaginary money and after much work and savings and careful investment the whole shebang folds won't my Roth or 401 or coffee can full of "money" buried in the cabbages be worthless?

I'm refusing to take the slightest blame for any financial problems this country has or will have. My Bride and I lived within our meager means for decades,living on beans and macaroni so we'd have a savings account as a retirement rainy-day fund. If the whole system collapses...and it will sooner or later.......we will be just as screwed as the rest of the country, even the grasshoppers that partied away their money weekly. When the government cuts my SS by 20% to make the system last longer, as some estimates are quoted, we are going to be PIZZED off and fighting mad. I personally paid into the system since the late 1960's. To put it bluntly....we had a deal. Live up to your end or the Boomers will be at the gate with pitchforks and torches.

More importantly, we Boomers VOTE.

Jim

The good thing is a lot of you are senile.

This "millennial" votes too.

[/quote] My question is if I buy into a Plan based on imaginary money and after much work and savings and careful investment the whole shebang folds won't my Roth or 401 or coffee can full of "money" buried in the cabbages be worthless? [/quote]

yes it will be. But, IF it doesn't fold, you will have a savings that will get you through the rest of your life (if you saved enough). It's all a crap-shoot. I for one, would rather play on the safe side and have money put away for retirement. If the whole economic system goes down the toilet (like it's not already ) and money becomes worthless, we are all in the same boat. But if it doesn't, the savers will have money to get them through.
My mom is 60 years old and has NOTHING put away! Not even $100.00! I can't imagine being 60 and not having any kind of cushion. She just recently got kicked out of her house (she rented) because she had to miss two weeks of work and had no money to pay the rent. Now, she is living with my brother and searching for a job. I don't ever want to be in that situation.

.......and another thing, I must misunderstand the whole SSI (Supplemental Security Income) deal....I thought/think it is another check, paid on top of the recipients regular SS or SSDisability check, that supplements that persons income ONLY if their assets and income is under a certain "poverty level" amount. Because my Bride and I were ants and not grasshoppers, we saved, saved, saved until it hurt, instead of blowing all our money on the various toys/vacations/want de jour, and as a result, we don't get squat, but those bozos that squandered their money and don't have much in the way of assets....GET MORE MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT!

SSI is straight up welfare paid to people who don't qualify for social security....and it comes from the general fund not the social security fund.

general fund and social security fund are the same thing. our government spends more than they take in. they don't care what the original tax was its all the same fund once they take it from you

I agree Danny. As James mentioned earlier about the accounting practices of the federal government, it really doesn't matter because they lie about the number anyway. It's all just bits and bytes on a computer system.

Before anyone gets mad at me, I'm not all that young and hopefully be retired with in the next 10 12 year but "we had a deal"? Bah!

The boomers made a deal with themselves. Promised themselves unfunded liabilities and are expecting their children to pay for it. Deal? Great deal except for the last guy holding the bag.

This scheme was hatched by FDR and bought by the Great Depression generation. The baby boomers inherited this mess.

James are you telling me that there was never any money borrowed and not returned? The way I understood it, there was a very large sum of money borrowed from social security and never paid back. If that is the case and it was done 30 years ago, then that money should be paid back to the social security system in full with interest.

Dirt, I'll agree with that as far the SS and some other bits of the mess, but truly I think the whole thing including fiat currency could not have been possible without Woody Wilson and the Flappers or lost gens, however you call them. The European based central bank was necessary for all the socialist programs to flourish.
Even if we start the fantasy with Nixon scrapping the precious metals, the bulk of the blame still predates the boomers as only the very oldest of them got to vote for tricky dicky and all the other pieces were already in place.

Any raise in SS benfits is always offsetted by a raise in Medicade fees. At least that has been in my observance.

Do you mean Medicare, RdFx?

Don, if I understand that quote from the SS Administration's website, the answer to your question is there was never any money borrowed and not returned. "The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

But the lawyers who drafted that page may have been cleverer than I am.

Jim