[Steve_American]

Back on March 2, 2005 Alan Greenspan testified under oath that the US Gov. can always pay the Soc. Sec. recipients the full amount they are owed. Below is a 2.5 min. clip from the actual testimony.

Cutting S.S. is total BS. We have paid for it twice. We paid the tax to pay for our parents' payments and we paid the additional tax to put aside money for our S.S. payments. Now, S.S. is dipping into the S.S. Trust Fund. Now, Congress has a choice. It can simply roll over the Bonds by borrowing from someone now to repay the money to the Trust Fund. Or it can create a special tax on someone to get the money to repay the Trust Fund as it presents Bonds to be redeemed.

For decades I have heard that Soc. Sec. was backed "By the full faith and credit of the US." Now, the Reduds in Congress want to break that faith.

As a lay-MMTer I can see that it is total BS to say that there is no money and we have to cut S.S. But, put that aside. Alan Greenspan said the same thing 13.5 years ago.

Again I want to say again, in 1983 Pres. Reagan and the Dems in Congress passed a law to increase the S.S. tax so as to put aside money for the retirement of the babyboomers. The tax was more or less doubled. What had been a "pay as you go" set up was converted into a "pay ahead of time" set up. We paid ahead of time for our benefits, we are entitled to them now. They are backed by the full faith and credit of the US. I'm warning Repuds if you cut our S.S. payments there will be HELL to pay.

As an MMTer I say this to those who are following the Babyboomers --- MMT says that you are not paying for our benefits. Taxes pay for nothing. Taxes are collected for several reasons, but providing dollars so the Gov. can spend them IS NOT ONE OF THOSE REASONS. This was stated as early as 1946 by the Chairman of [I think] the St. Louis Fed. Res. Bank in an article. [That is reportedly the most conservative of the several Fed. Res. Banks.]
. . Also, FDR is reported to have said that he set up the system with a special tax specifically to make it almost impossible for a future Congress to cut S.S. He thought the fact that everyone had been taxed all his/her working life would make them feel entitled to their payments when they retired and they would vote out of office all the politicians who voted to cut those benefits.
. . I'm told that you-all have no confidence that you will collect your benefits assuming that you live that long. This is counterproductive for you personally. It will let politicians cut your benefits and reduce your collective responce to that action. Why in the world would you do that? It actually costs nobody anything to make the payments to the recipients [according to MMT's view on how the system of gov. works]. Yes, you are paying a tax now, but the purpose of that tax is not to fund Gov. spending on S.S.; rather it is intended to make you feel entitled to your benefits when you retire. And letting your payments be cut will not give you your money back. If somehow the politicians find the money to give it back to you, that just proves that they didn't need to cut your payments in the first place. It proves that the goal is really to put the money in a place where it can be stolen like many pension funds have been stolen in the last decade or two. Why would you want your money to be stolen?
.

[jimjam]

"By the full faith and credit of the US."

As I say over and over and over Steve: follow the money and you will find the truth. The richest 1%/plutocrats are the real swamp and they run the country. Republicans are their front organization and Donald is their mouth piece/con man in chief. Democrats are not adverse to making the rich richer but Republicans are their favorite go to outfit. (can you in your wildest imagination see Republicans setting up a medicare or social security system for Americans who are not members of the club ?)

OK, the big picture. The Republican Plutocratic Party has had their eye on Social Security for quite some time. It really is a shame that all that $ has to trickle anywhere but to the top 1%. Step one of their plan to redirect the cash was recently accomplished via "tax reform". "Tax reform" redirected about $1,500,000,000,000 to rich folks and corporations (owned by rich folks) with some chicken feed directed at po folk for window dressing. This cash, of course, added to the federal deficit which is now being proclaimed too large to maintain Social Security. I could go on and on but that is the basic scam. Medicare also must go down the same road.

You gotta maintain your sense of humor throughout all the lies and deceit though. When Paul (Hapless) Ryan was asked how Social Security could remain solvent he responded that the peons should "have more babies". Paul, by the way, is worth $8,000,000.

There you have it Steve. Go out and have more babies.

I'm 74 and seem to have made it thru. But, unless we get some leaders other than the gutless bunch currently being led by Don The Con, you young folks are fucked.

[Steve_American]

@jimjam,
I am over 70 also. The young people need to get out and vote in primaries to get progressives on the ballot as Dems and then go out to vote for the Dem over the Repud. Any Dem, every Dem.
. . Dems are less likely to cut S.S., but they are not very good on other economic issues.
.
As I have said in another thread I called for the people to go out in the streets once a month to meet with like minded people to show each other and the world that they are going to do what it takes to get Progressives into power.
. . Sort of like the Occupy Movement. Only, don't stay out 24/7, just meet in the local downtown and demonstrate your determination to succeed in the project.
. . Don't be surprised if the gov. literally sends the police dogs out to attack you. The 1% will direct the gov. to do things like that.
. . Look at how the gov. reacted to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, also known by the hashtag #NODAPL. The 1% will not take this lying down.
The future of democracy in America is what is at stake.
.

[Hong Wu]

Some people talk a lot about cutting social security but realistically they never do it because that's where the voters are. It can be a decent primary angle for a Republican though.

[jimjam]

Some people talk a lot about cutting social security but realistically they never do it because that's where the voters are. It can be a decent primary angle for a Republican though.

You underestimate their tenacity and cleverness. With SS they will simply leave the existing recipients in place and lower the payout scale for new comers and increase the eligible age while, depending on which way the wind is blowing, mumbling something about lowering the deficit and/or the evils of socialism.

Medicare will be gutted via "privatization". They will mumble about improved efficiencies while, at the same time, passing out profitable concessions to their buddies.