I have never heard anything explaining SS in this unique way but if that's an opinion then that's what it is.
Reagan started dipping into the SS Trust Funds (Notice the Trust part) as well as taxing the returns. That was a while ago and maybe we forgot. The drive to privatize SS is long standing among some politicians of a certain mindset. These are well documented in the public record and continue today. I do not recall any "small part" privatization ploy. Maybe I missed that part? Regardless the latest ploy is to sunset SS authorization every five years the passage of which into law is unlikely.
The idea the system will collapse at some point is a favorite canard of some politicians. It could have certainly be engineered at some point but the fact is any necessary fix is very straightforward and simple - raise the current cap on income exclusion. A solution that is also unlikely to pass at this time.
I agree the SS Trust should not br used as an off the books piggy bank.
I support SS as it was intended. Always have. Others may disagree. That's the way things work.
That's Bull $hitt right there, Reagan didn't start the dipping, that's been going on ever since before FDR's signature was dry on the paper making it law, and it's the left that's done most of the dipping in order to fund their pet social change policies.
And as far as the "Let them die" quip, that was a progressive's attempt to smear conservatives with a broad brush just like the "Tossing Granny off the cliff" remark that became such a favorite of the left, like Crash said, you're intitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Well Moe, Simply calling something bs just because you happen to disagree might be better supported by some evidence, especially when interpretations of events I witnessed in real time so markedly differ from reality.
Financing for Social Security and Survivors Benefits Act of 1935 has been amended and adjusted over the years but remains basically unchanged. Since General Obligation Bonds may be issued by the Treasury to support SSI revenue it has been suggested that amounts to borrowing by politicians and but that seems a distinctly minority opinion. The role of Reagan administration machinations in accounting schemes in response to legislation concerning budgeting requirements is explained in - Research Note #20, Research Notes and Special Studies by the Historians Office at ssa.gov. The effects of the change in budgeting and spending laws was well chronicled at the time in popular mass media.
Please note I am not an Economist and am relying in large part on published official research.
There is no need to fabricate anything in an attempt to malign either Liberals or Conservatives. Simply recognizing their own words and deeds is often sufficient. I always maintain the issues we face and often argue are not primarily or even secondarily matters of Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative or any of the standard accepted pairings of opposites. Divide et Imperium works just as well today as it did many years ago and for the same reasons
Well Boomer, Apparently that's your problem, you read too damned much and you believe every word you read in the way you interpret it, whether it's social, economic, political, or scientific, you my friend are a great example of too much education mixed with too little intellectual capacity, I expect that you probably suffer from headaches allot.
I honestly don't know why you persist in demonizing the very people you are trying to socialize with, without a doubt the majority of the members of this forum (as many as there are left anyway) have a very conservative bent, most don't agree with your views on politics or man made global warming, in that respect you simply don't fit in here (in my opinion) and while you are well within your rights to have and express your views and opinions openly, sometimes just because you can doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.
As an outdoors person who appears to be skilled in self reliance skills and living somewhat off the grid you are a welcomed member and contributor to this forum, but as far as your progressive views are concerned you really aren't endearing yourself to this group in any meaningful way, something you might want to consider for however much longer this venue is available to us as a group.
Am I telling you to shut up, no, I'm just suggesting that your politics is a segue leading to irritation and argument that we can do without most of the time.
Am I suggesting that the members not discuss politics, religion, or other controversial subjects, no, I am suggesting that being a square peg doesn't make you a good fit for a round hole, think before you speak, if you show up at a dinner party wearing a favorite cologne, it's usually fine, but if you show up wearing Ode de Skunk, you may not find any sitting room next to the other guests.
You know that most of your political views are not those normally held by most of this forums membership, why piss them off needlessly if that is not your intent, if it is your intent it's called trolling.
