In the Youtube debates a questioner pointed out that "past presidents" nearly bankrupted the social security trust fund and he asked the candidates what they'd do to fix it. Romney's response was to "return to the policies of Ronald Reagan", but it was Reagan who spent the money in the trust fund! Is Romney just desperate and pandering for votes?
2007-12-02 14:31:52 · 14 answers · asked by CaesarLives 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think Romney signaled he would end Social Security as we know it. The most successful program in US history. One that hasn't cost the American taxpayer one penny. It's always run a surplus. If Reagan hadn't stolen from the trust fund there would be no future problems.
2007-12-02 14:37:27 · answer #1 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Reagan didn't spend the money in the SS trust fund.
You act like there is an account somewhere, where they government kept excess SS revenue.
Since 1968, the first year that SS revenue exceeded SS payments,
Excess SS revenue has been turned into US Treasury Bonds.
Those US Treasury Bonds are the trust fund.
They are what SS will cash in, when around 2017, SS payments, start exceeding SS tax revenue.
And Reagan, actually helped SS.
SS was going to start paying more in benefits, than it collected in revenue, in the lat 1980's.
But them increased the maximum wages that had to pay SS tax's, and increased the retirement age, and that pushed the date back to 2017.
Think about it folks, you really believe there is a trust fund, the government depositing money in First national bank, etc ?
That makes no sense at all.
When they speak of a SS lock box, what they mean, is for every penny of excess SS revenue collected. That the national debt should be paid down by that amount.
That way, it would balance the US Treasury bonds that were issued to SS.
Over half the National Debt now, is US Treasury bonds held by Social security.
2007-12-02 16:52:05 · answer #2 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First of all there is no, nor has there ever been a social security trust fund, or in the language of Al Gore a social security lock box. The social security paid out to seniors now, is paid for by the taxpayers. When you are at retirement age, the younger generation pays social security taxes to benefit you. As a footnote, a lot of the so called you tube questioners were plants, who would not know the difference between social security and ssi.
And as a footnote, I wish there was a social security trust fund, like a 401k, so that we, the contributors/tax payers could watch how our money is invested and used..
2007-12-02 14:40:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The executive branch does not have the power to appropriate funds. Congress does. Read the Constitution. The President, be it Reagan or Clinton, Johnson or Bush, can only spend what comes from Congress, and Congress usually tells the Executive Branch what it can spend it on. To say that any President spent the trust fund money is showing an ignorance of our own government and how it works. Now Congress, on the other hand, has been pulling this trust fund to general fund trick since the sixties, and both the Democratic Congresses of the sixties, seventies and eighties, and the Republican Congresses of the nineties have been guilty of it. Now that Congress is back in the hands of the Democrats, don't be looking for any changes...there haven't been any!
2007-12-02 14:39:48 · answer #4 · answered by Dalgor 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Reagan didn't have enough IQ points left to bankrupt an ant farm, but it's getting to be a Republican tradition. Best Presidents money can buy.
2007-12-02 14:41:47 · answer #5 · answered by Bob H 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think Romney meant sell Iranian terrorists weapons, like Reagan did, so they'll be less Americans to give social security to.
2007-12-02 15:11:47 · answer #6 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There never was any fund. SS is a ponzi scheme, always was, always will be. It's mathematics are inherently UNSOUND.
Had my father put his Social Security money into his IRA or mutual funds, he would have died a millionaire. Instead, he died at 66 and got nothing.
With current demographics, my sons will be treated far worse than he was. I'm not worried about my grand-kids, though. They'll be too busy building a new nation from the ashes of socialism.
2007-12-02 14:38:39 · answer #7 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I don't know if I'd call it pandering, but I believe that all the republicans are constantly referencing Reagan because he is a recent, popular republican president. It's the best way to be modern and still dissociate from Bush. It's not like he can say we need to return to the policies of Eisenhower, and he certainly can't reference Nixon as a role model.
2007-12-02 14:35:20 · answer #8 · answered by Bethany * 3 · 5⤊ 4⤋
How can Reagan spend money? I thought Congress had the power of the purse.
ANd the Democrats controlled Congress for most of his administration...
2007-12-02 14:38:05 · answer #9 · answered by Gary W 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Reagan took over from the worse president in history...18% uninpolyment and inflation...Ring a bell...Democrats refused to cut any kind of pork from the budget and them blame him... I don`t think so
2007-12-02 14:39:38 · answer #10 · answered by charlie s 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋