Did you apply for a check, Dirt?

Jim

Typical pass the buck mentality.

You were born before the government started up a 29 trillion dollar deficit.

Is that what you going to tell the grand kids?

"We are sorry little Timmy and Tina, I know the federal debt is 29 trilllion, SSI liability is 21 trillion and Medicare is 33 trillion. Piece of cake"

You passed the buck too, Steven. Aside from complaining, what have you done about the national debt?

Jim

Yes. I own the oil.

There isn't much I can do except not ever vote for another candidate whose platform requires unlimited money creation and try to educate others about the danger of it.

Let's face it I'm vastly outnumbered even in the conservative party.

I imagine I'll start getting involved in the local caucus.

"Phase two in the politics of Social Security dates to the mid-1990s with the rise of Republican House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich and his ideologically driven brand of politics. During President Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s tenure, the push for privatization and cutting benefits moved from the fringes into the mainstream. Clinton flirted with partial privatization and Bush spent considerable political capital in 2005 pushing his own partial privatization plan. Bush’s effort failed to gather much popular support, though. Part of the reason is that voters weren’t convinced Social Security was in crisis, let alone in danger of imminent collapse, notes William Galston, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in a retrospective analysis. Public doubts about personal accounts intensified the more people learned of the details, adds Galston.

Nonetheless, conservatives have continued to embrace this rhetoric. Current House Speaker Paul Ryan has been a long-time proponent of privatizing Social Security in his various budget proposals and one staple of modern conservative commentary has been that the swelling ranks of boomers is pushing the U.S. toward an inevitable fiscal crisis unless benefits are cut.

Until now. Although dating transformations is always a tricky business, historians may well highlight the beginning of the third shift in the politics of Social Security to March 10, 2016. During the Republican debate in Miami that night, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked: “What you candidates intend to do to keep Social Security going for future generations?” Sen. Marco Rubio focused on raising the retirement age; Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich mentioned private accounts. This was the standard rhetoric of phase two Social Security conservatism.

Then, Donald Trump weighed in, saying “and it’s my absolute intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not increase the age and to leave it as is.” Says Jacobs: “I was watching that debate when he made that statement. The contrast between Trump and everyone else. He has a strong sense of his supporters, Tea Partiers and seniors.” "

If you don't want to use it, don't apply for it, your still going to pay into though, unless there is some sort of a large movement for a different program instead of more smoke and mirrors plans, it's will just dissolve on it's own !

While it's totally unfair for that to happen for all the people who are paying into it and those waiting to use it, politicians don't want to jeopardize their continued careers on a cash cow taken by them from the public and used nefariously for other things continually against what it was solely design for, it's just to easy to manipulate around it or move it to something else !

Until the people of this country totally agree that our politicians are corrupt with money ideas and they work with each other in shady rooms with each other to help them selves to our dollars, nothing is going to change how tings are done in this country, short of a reversal of how to get things done, we already see how that ends up in so many other countries now !

It's ugly, still does not work and it is a total nightmare.

Some how our congress and state legislators need to be made to understand that this country is being run right off the edge of civility and into total chaos !!

It seems to have been planned that way.

"Entropy: The Hidden Force
That Complicates Life


Entropy, a measure of disorder, explains why life seems to get more, not less, complicated as time goes on.

***

All things trend toward disorder. More specifically, the second law of thermodynamics states that “as one goes forward in time, the net entropy (degree of disorder) of any isolated or closed system will always increase (or at least stay the same).”[1]

Entropy is simply a measure of disorder and affects all aspects of our daily lives. In fact, you can think of it as nature’s tax.[2]

Left unchecked disorder increases over time. Energy disperses, and systems dissolve into chaos. The more disordered something is, the more entropic we consider it. In short, we can define entropy as a measure of the disorder of the universe, on both a macro and a microscopic level. The Greek root of the word translates to “a turning towards transformation” — with that transformation being chaos."

I dont need no stinking SS or MA. I'm a trapper! Imma catch beaver, makr some cozy thongs and feast on beav!

Coonman, take note.

BINGO,,,we have a winner !!

Those IOUs are being paid back as we speak and will run out in 2034..

I'm sure the Fed would like to double their ownership of 12% treasuries to 24%. Abracadabra! 3 trillion into SSI trust fund.!

"Total amount invested 2,860,161,145,000
Average interest rate a 2.371%"

Too bad you are paying the interest to yourselves.

Eventually the FED will be the only entity buying treasuries

I believe their are some laws that force some mutual funds to buy them? Those interest rates are attractive.

BS.The payroll tax hike of 1983 (Ronny Regan) was supposed to make Social Security solvent for pretty much EVER.Not a DIME went into the fund.Were you even born then??

"Off-Budget" Again-

In the 1983 Social Security Amendments a provision was included mandating that Social Security be taken "off-budget" starting in FY 1993. This was a recommendation from the National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka the Greenspan Commission). The Commission's report argued: "The National Commission believes that changes in the Social Security program should be made only for programmatic reasons, and not for purposes of balancing the budget. Those who support the removal of the operations of the trust funds from the budget believe that this policy of making changes only for programmatic reasons would be more likely to be carried out if the Social Security program were not in the unified budget." (Note that this was a majority recommendation of the Commission, not the unanimous view of all members.) This change was in fact enacted into statute in the Social Security Amendments of 1983, signed into law by President Reagan on April 20, 1983.

The actual form of the 1983 change was somewhat complex. It provided:

1) That the Social Security and Medicare trust funds (and the income and outgo to these funds) be treated as separate budget functions, starting with the 1985 fiscal year and ending with fiscal year 1992.

2) For the initial budget year after enactment (FY 1984) the Congress would be bound to use the new procedures but the executive branch would not (because the FY 1984 President's budget had already been submitted to Congress under the old rules).

3) Starting with fiscal year 1993, Social Security and the Medicare Part A trust funds were not only off-budget, but were exempted from any general budget reductions that might otherwise apply to the entire federal budget (such as an across-the-board cut). The Part B Medicare trust fund, while also to be shown as a separate budget function, was not protected from general budget limitations.

Thus, in this rather complicated fashion, the Social Security program was again off-budget by FY 1985. Perhaps the more important date here, however, was the 1993 date because that date exempted the Social Security program from the potential of generalized budget-cuts

.Historyof the so-called Trust Fund

Source: Social Security Administration

" Summary-

So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed."

" The Social Security trust funds, managed by the Department of the Treasury, are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. Since the beginning of the Social Security program, all securities held by the trust funds have been issued by the Federal Government.

There are two general types of such securities:

special issues—securities available only to the trust funds; and
public issues—securities available to the public (marketable securities).

The trust funds now hold only special issues, but they have held public issues in the past."

Why yes in fact I was. Even if I hadn't what difference would it make. It's not my fault you didn't understand what happened with the surplus money

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html

Pretty good chart right from the SSA how much money has been received and spent the last 70 years.

Good job staying near the top of the pyramid.