Social Security money to Iraq?

Question

My friend said that the government is using social security money to fund the war in Iraq, my parents say no. What do you know? (I'd LOVE to prove my friend right)

Answer 1

The govt has been spending every dime it takes in for years. The Social Security Trust Fund is a filing cabinet filled with T-Bills, in other words Govt, IOUs. Anyone who believes that Social Security is solvent or that the system could ever work as advertised by mainly Democrat politicians has no understanding of basic economics or math. Social Security is nothing more than a legal Ponzi Scheme.

Answer 2

Is the Social-Security Trust Safe?
Just the Facts:
The national debt is borrowed from many sources and always has been. Once borrowed the money is spent—that's the point of it. But the U.S. government has always honored its debts and is still the safest investment.

Is the national debt so big we can't pay it back? Compared to the size of our economy it's smaller than in World War II, and we paid it down after that. There is only one danger to social Security, and that's Congress.

Congress could decide not to let Social Security use its trust fund. Here's how. It could reduce Social Security benefits so much, that Social Security would never need the trust fund. But the Democrats have always supported Social Security, so that danger could only come from the Republicans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Whitehouse says: There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay. –Bush, April 5, 2005
• We take your payroll taxes; we pay out the benefits to the current retirees; and with the money left over, we pay -- pay for other programs. And there's nothing left but file cabinets with IOUs. –Bush, April 26, 2005
• I went to West Virginia the other day to look at the filing cabinets, to make sure the IOUs were there — paper. And it's there. ... not a very encouraging sight. –Bush, April 18, 2005
• Now, about $1.7 trillion of that is in the so-called trust fund; that is, money -- that's money that's been collected that's not there as cash at this point. –Cheney, March 22, 2005
Hey, wait a minute!
• What about the Federal Pension Trust Fund? It's just the same—all $800 billion of it. You mean there are no military pensions?!
• What about the $280 billion in Medicare Trusts—are those fake?
• And, the highway trust and all other government trusts? $3.1 trillion all told.

And what's their problem with "paper"? A thousand dollar bill is paper, the check I write, my stock certificate, my government bond—all paper. Did they expect the trust would be made of diamonds?

What of the millions of Americans who own Treasury bonds, all paper? Seven trillion dollars of national debt has been spent on government programs, and there is "nothing left." Has the US of A defrauded the world of $7 trillion?

When you put money in the bank you get paper, and they lend your money to someone who spends it. Your cash does not stay in the bank. Does Cheney really think the SSA should have a storeroom of cash? They're just trying to frighten the people.
There Is Only One Danger—Congress
Congress could pass a law that Social Security Benefits will be cut in half from now on. The Supreme Court ruled ruled that legal 40 years ago. If they did that, the SSA would never "need" it to pay benefits. So the contribution from all those millions of pay checks would be trapped in the Soc. Sec. Trust and never see the light of day—it may as well be stolen.

But What Congress Would Do That? Would the Democrats do that? Not on your life. Would the Republicans do that? Hmmm. They've always disliked Social Security. They are the ones saying the Trust is not real, it's just paper, it's just a burden, too bad it has to be paid back ...

Social Security has always had a Trust Fund, but in 1982 it was tiny, and Greenspan pushed for raising the low and middle-income payroll taxes which are putting billions into the Trust. Meanwhile Reagan and Bush have cut income taxes, mainly on the rich. The national debt goes up and they tell us—Hey, we're in debt, we can't afford to pay back that Trust fund.

Why rob Social Security? That's where the money is !

Answer 3

We have a $9 trillion national debt. All new spending is added to that debt.You are correct, both sides borrow from Social Security to fund defense spending. That is why SS should be taken out of the general fund budget, A "lock Box". Also Congress just passed pay go, which means for the first time in 5 years new spending must be off set by reductions in other spending. IE a balance budget. There is no mystery as to where the public got the idea that the government has somehow stumbled onto a gigantic windfall of excess money. They have been told this over and over by President Clinton and by both presidential candidates. George W. Bush has even promised a $1.3 trillion reduction in income taxes over the next 10 years, citing the alleged surplus as his source for funding the large tax cut. Given the fact that the government has more than $4.5 trillion in unpaid bills just from its spending over the past 20 years, the idea of reducing the nation's revenue by an additional $1.3 trillion without corresponding cuts in spending is preposterous.

Answer 4

When Social Security first was established the aim was to take in more money monthly then we gave out. This money was to earn interest for the future generations.

We still take in more tax money for social security then we pay out but this administration is using the money for the war.

During the election of 2000, the Democrats promised what they call a "lock box" for social security and medicaid money. They lost that election and this is where we are today.

Our Republican Administration is covering up their use of the money and trying to privatize SS. If you privatize SS, the government will control your money and you might wind up with nothing.

Answer 5

Congress has not used it to specifically fund the war in Iraq, but they have taken out over 2 trillion dollars. That is why SS is falling apart and there's no money...so much of it is gone because of Congress.

Answer 6

I'd say no but they are using your grandkids and their grandkids taxes (and maybe ss) to pay off the debt these clowns are running up.
O what'd we do, why take a tax cut of course.

Now there is a surplus (today) in the SS accounts and that just goes into the general fund, so there is a little truth in what the friend is saying.

Answer 7

Not one member of congress has come forward and discussed the real issue of Social Security. This is a moral issue and it can not be understood without a brief history lesson:

Until 1983, Social Security was a pay as you go system - a contract between generations, where the younger generation paid for the retirement of the previous generation. But in 1983, Congress recognized that the retirement of the Baby Boom generation would put an unfair burden on the next (smaller) generation of workers unless changes were made to the system. As a result of the massive 1983 reform package, the retirement age was scheduled to gradually be raised to 67 in order to account for longer life spans and social security taxes on wages were increased by about 1/3, in order to build up a real trust fund to help pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation. As a result, the trust fund has built up a surplus of over 2 trillion dollars - and the baby boomers paid for their parents' retirement while providing for their own as well. By one measure, the 1983 reform package has been wildly successful, as the surplus in the trust fund is now predicted to last at least until 2042, when the oldest baby boomers will be 96 years old if they are still alive. (Even then the Security System will not be broke - It will just have to go back to a pay as you go system - which may not be much of a problem if the baby boom generation is dead.)

When the social security reform legislation was signed into law by Presdent Regean in April of 1983, he said:

"We're entering an age when average Americans will live longer and live more productive lives. And these amendments adjust to that progress. The changes in this legislation will allow social security to age as gracefully as all of us hope to do ourselves, without becoming an overwhelming burden on generations still to come.

So, today we see an issue that once divided and frightened so many people now uniting us. Our elderly need no longer fear that the checks they depend on will be stopped or reduced. These amendments protect them. Americans of middle age need no longer worry whether their career-long investment will pay off. These amendments guarantee it. And younger people can feel confident that social security will still be around when they need it to cushion their retirement."

Early in his first term, President Reagan promised to balance the Federal Budget by 1983. The problem of course is that we have had massive budget deficits under the administrations of Reagan and Bush I and II. Because the baby boom generation has not yet started to retire, this year congress will be able to borrow and will borrow over 150 billion dollars from the social security trust fund (in addition to approximately 2 trillion dollars that have already been borrowed), every penny of which was paid for by FICA taxes on the wages of working people - and congress has no plan in place to pay it back when it is needed to pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation. This money has been used to pay for the war in Iraq, and to make it easier to give tax cuts to the rich and for numerous other things. This borrowing has masked the true size of the federal budget deficit, because politicians have the tendency to ignore it when talking about the size of the federal budget deficit. But over 2 trillion dollars of the 9 trillion dollar national debt consists of money borrowed (some would say looted) from the social security trust fund.

The lowest paid minimum wage worker and a person making $90,000 per year pay social security (FICA) taxes at the same percentage rate. The justification for this that FICA taxes are like retirement savings.

When President Bush complained (in his 2005 State of the Union address) that in 2017, the trust fund will be paying out more than it takes in and when he calls the trust fund a "worthless bunch of IOU's," he is in effect asking for "debt relief." He wants to find a way to avoid repaying the debt to the trust fund so that he can preserve his 15% dividend and capital gains tax rates and his other tax breaks for the rich.

Thus we are faced with a profound moral isssue: Is it right to borrow and spend somebody's retirement money and not pay it back. If the CEOs of a big corporation (like Enron or World Com) had taken all the money from their employees' pension plans and replaced it with a bunch of worthless stock options or worthless IOUs, they would be headed to jail. In the alternative, is it right to maintain tax cuts for the rich and pay back the retirement money borrowed from the trust fund by passing the entire cost of doing so on to the next generation - something the 1983 reforms were intended to avoid?

In order to take the high moral ground on this issue, Democrats must recognize that they had a hand in creating the big deficits of the past 23 years. Both parties have been buying our votes with borrowed money for far too long. But in any event, the press and politicians have an obligation to explain to the public that it is not social security but the rest of the government that needs reforming. When President Bush framed the issue as a problem with social security rather than a problem with deficit spending in the rest of the government, the Democrats and the Press should have called him on it. Neither have done their job.

Answer 8

You friend is a Twit...find a new friend

Answer 9

your friend is an idiot, stay away from that person