A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time
in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending
on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it
has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from
the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a
taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends
Sept. 30.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Best Regards
Tom.

On 2010-02-05, azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time
in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending
on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it
has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from
the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a
taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends
Sept. 30.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Tom, Republicans were always in support of "free trade", which is
associated with exporting jobs.

I also support "free trade", by the way, even though I voted for
Obama.

The reality is that, given our free trade treaty obligations and the
capitalist system, there is very little that we can do to prevent jobs
going to the lowest suitable builder.

So some impoverished villagers in India bid $3/day to make cheap vises
and poison their own environment, and guess what, that's where the job
goes and we cannot do much about it.

Those villagers cannot bid $3/day to build airplanes, so these jobs
still stay in the US.

It is not free trade that causes our problems, it is excessive
borrowing.

i

On Feb 5, 3:33*pm, Ignoramus17710 ignoramus17...@NOSPAM.
17710.invalid wrote:
On 2010-02-05, azotic wrote:

A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time
in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending
on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it
has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from
the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a
taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends
Sept. 30.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...curity_bailout....

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Tom, Republicans were always in support of "free trade", which is
associated with exporting jobs.

I also support "free trade", by the way, even though I voted for
Obama.

The reality is that, given our free trade treaty obligations and the
capitalist system, there is very little that we can do to prevent jobs
going to the lowest suitable builder.

So some impoverished villagers in India bid $3/day to make cheap vises
and poison their own environment, and guess what, that's where the job
goes and we cannot do much about it.

Those villagers cannot bid $3/day to build airplanes, so these jobs
still stay in the US.

It is not free trade that causes our problems, it is excessive
borrowing.

i

Not yet that is.

China is working very hard to become a viable airplane exporter.

In the future you will be driving a Chinese car.

And flying in a Chinese airplane.

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 5, 3:33 pm, Ignoramus17710 ignoramus17...@NOSPAM.
17710.invalid wrote:
On 2010-02-05, azotic wrote:

A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time
in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending
on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it
has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from
the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a
taxpayer bailout.
Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends
Sept. 30.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...curity_bailout....
Exporting jobs finally shows results...............
Tom, Republicans were always in support of "free trade", which is
associated with exporting jobs.

I also support "free trade", by the way, even though I voted for
Obama.

The reality is that, given our free trade treaty obligations and the
capitalist system, there is very little that we can do to prevent jobs
going to the lowest suitable builder.

So some impoverished villagers in India bid $3/day to make cheap vises
and poison their own environment, and guess what, that's where the job
goes and we cannot do much about it.

Those villagers cannot bid $3/day to build airplanes, so these jobs
still stay in the US.

It is not free trade that causes our problems, it is excessive
borrowing.

i

Not yet that is.

China is working very hard to become a viable airplane exporter.

In the future you will be driving a Chinese car.

And flying in a Chinese airplane.

TMT

Cessna 162 SkyCatcher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162

A $110,000 airplane
"By manufacturing the aircraft in China, Cessna reported that it saved
US$71,000 in production costs per aircraft produced."

azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will
now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how much
revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs, i
havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Best Regards
Tom.

azotic wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.



http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow
money. Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of
how much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting
jobs, i havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Huntress might have some idea. One thing you'd have to do is look at the
number of jobs exports create as an offset.
You can't just say revenues are down because jobs have been lost through
trade policy.
The actual number of jobs is a lot less important that the tax base erosion.
The US is probably looking at a net gain.
You'd probably be surprised at that number. It's large.

Manufacturing exports, for instance, have risen prety steadily.

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.



http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow
money. Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of
how much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting
jobs, i havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Huntress might have some idea. One thing you'd have to do is look at the
number of jobs exports create as an offset.
You can't just say revenues are down because jobs have been lost through
trade policy.
The actual number of jobs is a lot less important that the tax base
erosion.
The US is probably looking at a net gain.
You'd probably be surprised at that number. It's large.

Manufacturing exports, for instance, have risen prety steadily.

--
John R. Carroll

The subject is a killer. There really isn't any clear data. There are lots
of anecdotes, but not enough to give you the big picture. Not even many
little ones, except in isolation.

--
Ed Huntress

"azotic" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will
now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how
much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs, i
havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Best Regards
Tom.

You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless arguments.

This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my first
attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is that it will
take me at least six or seven months of steady research before I have
anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear answer,
even then.

The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
going both ways.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...



Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how
much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs,
i havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Best Regards
Tom.

You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless
arguments.

This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my
first attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is that
it will take me at least six or seven months of steady research before I
have anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear
answer, even then.

The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
going both ways.

--
Ed Huntress


you saying that ed makes me wonder if ANYBODY knows, if this is yet another
massive uncontrolled experiment. they were just going on ideology when they
started this instead of having any idea how it was going to turn out.

b.w.

William Wixon wrote:


you saying that ed makes me wonder if ANYBODY knows, if this is yet another
massive uncontrolled experiment. they were just going on ideology when they
started this instead of having any idea how it was going to turn out.

b.w.




Kinda scary, isn't it...

--

Richard Lamb

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:03:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"azotic" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will
now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how
much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs, i
havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Best Regards
Tom.

You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless arguments.

This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my first
attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is that it will
take me at least six or seven months of steady research before I have
anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear answer,
even then.

The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
going both ways.
==========
The following WSJ article should be of interest.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._LEFTWhatsNews

Many Jobs Gone Forever, Economists Say
Increased Automation, Relocations Overseas Mean Workers Will Find
Different Employment Mix When Recession Ends
By PHIL IZZO

About a quarter of the 8.4 million jobs eliminated since the
recession began won't be coming back and will ultimately need to
be replaced by other types of work in growing industries,
according to economists in the latest Wall Street Journal
forecasting survey.
snip
It isn't just weak growth that's damping job growth. "Companies,
in the name of making money, substitute against labor through
outsourcing or technology," said Allen Sinai of Decision
Economics. Wages and benefits make workers "so expensive that who
wants to hire them? As a result, the displaced workers won't be
rehired unless we have double the growth rate we're expecting."
snip
===========


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:03:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"azotic" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will
now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how
much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs,
i
havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Best Regards
Tom.

You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless
arguments.

This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my
first
attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is that it will
take me at least six or seven months of steady research before I have
anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear answer,
even then.

The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
going both ways.
==========
The following WSJ article should be of interest.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._LEFTWhatsNews

Many Jobs Gone Forever, Economists Say
Increased Automation, Relocations Overseas Mean Workers Will Find
Different Employment Mix When Recession Ends
By PHIL IZZO

About a quarter of the 8.4 million jobs eliminated since the
recession began won't be coming back and will ultimately need to
be replaced by other types of work in growing industries,
according to economists in the latest Wall Street Journal
forecasting survey.
snip
It isn't just weak growth that's damping job growth. "Companies,
in the name of making money, substitute against labor through
outsourcing or technology," said Allen Sinai of Decision
Economics. Wages and benefits make workers "so expensive that who
wants to hire them? As a result, the displaced workers won't be
rehired unless we have double the growth rate we're expecting."
snip
===========

That is interesting, George. There's a similar article in, I think, this
month's _Atlantic Monthly_.

I've mentioned before that I've always been a pessimist about jobs as we
come out of recessions, but my pessimism may finally be coming to pass. I
really don't see where the jobs will be coming from.

There's some serious questioning going on about the premises of the
free-market model, but we went through that in the '30s, too. So I don't
make too much of it. But I had a feeling about reaching this moment in
history 'way back in the early '70s. I was covering automation and computers
were just starting to get involved. It looked then like we wouldn't need a
lot of people in the future. My thoughts then were that we would simply
shorten the work week, like France was doing at the time. But capital
doesn't like to be spread around. g

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.

Are those the FICA taxes? As in making withdrawls from my 401K that has defered income
taxes only subject to the income tax?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will now be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow
money. Taxes can go up and benefit payments can be reduced but
that's about it.

Are those the FICA taxes? As in making withdrawls from my 401K that
has defered income taxes only subject to the income tax?


I suppose. Disbursements from your 401K are hardly tax free, however, if you
make them early.
There was talk last year of passing a law to allow 401K distributions tax
free in distressed situations ut it didn't go anywhere.

Hey Wes, one other alternative is to do what Ronald Reagan did and delay the
onset of benefit payments to an older age.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Hey Wes, one other alternative is to do what Ronald Reagan did and delay the
onset of benefit payments to an older age.

You know that one is coming. Reagan (R) and Tip O'Neal (D) cut a deal on that one.


Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Hey Wes, one other alternative is to do what Ronald Reagan did and
delay the onset of benefit payments to an older age.

You know that one is coming. Reagan (R) and Tip O'Neal (D) cut a
deal on that one.

What's most likely coming is growth of the work force.
Neither taxes or benefits paid are particularly out of line as far as SS is
concerned.
What's whacky is the ratio of old farts not working to whipper snappers like
you who are.

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will
now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll



SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of the US
government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all the extra money
that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that money has already been blown
by Congress, so we will get tax increases to pay back the money they
borrowed from the taxpayers.

"Bill McKee" wrote:

SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of the US
government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all the extra money
that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that money has already been blown
by Congress, so we will get tax increases to pay back the money they
borrowed from the taxpayers.


I knew my 401K was at risk.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," Yossarian observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Bill McKee wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.



http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow
money. Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.



SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of the
US government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all the
extra money that SS had over the years.

No, they can't.
They can't require anything.
See my response to Wes.


--
John R. Carroll

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will
now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll



SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of the US
government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all the extra money
that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that money has already been
blown by Congress, so we will get tax increases to pay back the money they
borrowed from the taxpayers.

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew from the
start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us laugh when we
hear about the "trust fund."

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew from the
start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us laugh when we
hear about the "trust fund."


And some of us are outraged that our federal government misrepresented how FICA was used
to finance a government that had un-sound financial policies.

I'm only p*ss*ed, I knew the screw was on for a long, long time.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew from the
start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us laugh when we
hear about the "trust fund."


And some of us are outraged that our federal government misrepresented how
FICA was used
to finance a government that had un-sound financial policies.

I'm only p*ss*ed, I knew the screw was on for a long, long time.

Wes

With all due respect, Wes, they never hid how it works. People just didn't
pay attention. This was all thoroughly explained and vetted back in the
'80s, when Greenspan was selling an increase in the FICA rate to Congress.

This is a complicated government. Its finances work astoundingly well, and
it's not at all hard to understand the basics. But most people don't bother
to look into it, and wind up being suspicious and paranoid about the whole
thing.

There are so many cheap-shot ways to criticize it that Congress generally
keeps pretty quiet about it. But they don't hide it. That's unfortunate in
several ways, one of which we're paying for now: it's given the Tea Partiers
a whole string of cheap-shot arguments.

I'm sure that most of them don't know how it all works. And they're counting
on most of the country not knowing how it works. That's how they get people
worked up and angry -- by selling them a bunch of baloney, playing on their
suspicions and their lack of understanding. That's what creates paranoia.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.



http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money.
Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll



SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of
the US government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all
the extra money that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that
money has already been blown by Congress, so we will get tax
increases to pay back the money they borrowed from the taxpayers.

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew
from the start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us
laugh when we hear about the "trust fund."

Yeah, it isn't even a drawer.
Somewhere on a computer there is a file recording movement od dollars from
column A to column B and back again.

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.



http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money.
Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll



SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of
the US government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all
the extra money that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that
money has already been blown by Congress, so we will get tax
increases to pay back the money they borrowed from the taxpayers.

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew
from the start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us
laugh when we hear about the "trust fund."

Yeah, it isn't even a drawer.
Somewhere on a computer there is a file recording movement od dollars from
column A to column B and back again.

--
John R. Carroll

And the bottom line is that the dollars were spent, as they had to be.
There's no sock to put them in. There is no big pot of money. There's
nothing else to do with them except to use them to pay down the national
debt.

Which Clinton did, to a modest degree. What drives me crazy is that Bush II
and Reagan kept spending in deficit even when the economy was climbing!

--
Ed Huntress

On Feb 5, 4:31*pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:


Yeah, it isn't even a drawer.
Somewhere on a computer there is a file recording movement od dollars from
column A to column B and back again.

--
John R. Carroll

You are absolutely correct, John. The FICA money goes directly to the
US Treasury via the IRS. Not a penny goes to the SSA. On the other
side, the SSA does not disburse a single penny. They tell the US
Treasury to disburse so much money to some recipient. All the SSA does
is keep records and print reports.

The FICA money used to purchase Treasury Notes is just a book keeping
system and nothing more, since Treasury also issues/sells the notes.
No money ever changes hands in the transaction, just changes account
numbers.

Paul