On 2/17/2015 8:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

On 02/16/2015 11:35 PM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

On 02/16/2015 03:29 PM, Baxter wrote:

or they will have to tax US taxpayers a second time for the
same purpose to get the money or a combination of both.

No, it is not "second time". They should have levied a tax for
whatever it was they spent those borrowed dollars on. OR they
could have borrowed that money from a third party to begin with.

We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what
should have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to
a contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he
comes back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian
vacation, but all you have to do is give him some more cash and
he'll get right with it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.

Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money
from somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him
more cash, and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some
sort of sucker who would give the contractor more money, but in the
Real World, real people call their lawyers.

A more apt analogy would be the contractor going to my kids and
demanding they replace the money he had already spent.


And the same legal situation holds - the contractor is still responsible.
You can use a bank anology too - SS puts surplus funds into the bank, the
bank MUST allow SS to withdraw those funds when it needs/wants to.

Do you really believe that the government has surplus funds to put into
SS? Federal taxes and SS taxes are paid to the government with one
check. The money actually goes to where ever it is needed the most but
owes countless debtors including the SS division. There is no surplus
when your owe more than your income.


I think it is pretty common knowledge that the government prints extra
money to pay its debts, umteen trillion now, and as a result we see the
dollar buy less and less.