Shopsmith Forums

Is it true that the US Government borrowed money from the Social Security Trust Fund?

If true, what were those borrowed funds used for?

Why can the Government agencies that used those borrowed funds not be required to put the funds back?

Every last penny of Social Security surplus funds (when there were surpluses--there haven't been any for three years) have been spent on whatever the federal government spends money on. The surplus funds went into the U.S. general fund and got spent.

In place of all these surplus funds that were spent, Social Security now holds a couple of trillion dollars worth (or worthless depending on your opinion) of treasury bills, or IOUs from the Treasury Department. Now, over the past three years, Social Security has had to cash in some of those T-Bills with the Treasury and we know they get their money in the main from taxes collected, but also of late 40 percent of the money being spent comes from borrowing from places like China, Japan, the UK, and others that buy treasury bills. In government speak, these T-Bills held by Social Security are "assets," but unfortunately it's the taxpayers who are on the hook for supplying the money that makes these assets, assets.

That's sorts like the quarters, nickels and dimes that I put in the coffee can out in the shop. The coins are from the change that I have whenever I empty my pockets.

I have been doing this for years. Whenever I need something in the shop (sand paper, alcohol, paint thinner, rags, etc) I use the money in the coffee can. I see this as prepaid expenses.

A short time ago, my wife found me counting my stash. I took it to the store and exchanged $45 in coins for paper money. A couple days later, she was on the way out the door to go shopping with the daughters. She tapped me for my stash so that she could pay for lunches without using a charge card.

Now, when I need shop supplies, I have to use the charge card (which creates a permanent record when there would have been none).

The big difference, however, is that she isn't making you put another $45 in the coffee can. With Social Security those folks (us) who put in all those surplus funds that got spent are now required to pay back what was spent.

Unfortunately, this is a common practice by our elected officials to pay for debts and balance budgets. If they see an excess in one place they will borrow against it. When in reality they are doing as the old saying goes "robbing Peter to pay Paul". And when it comes time to repay Peter, they just pull the excess funding from some other source. So in reality, they do not accomplish anything. But, it looks good because they are only responsible for 4 years at a time.

pennview wrote:The big difference, however, is that she isn't making you put another $45 in the coffee can. With Social Security those folks (us) who put in all those surplus funds that got spent are now required to pay back what was spent.

It doesn't seem to me as though they are putting anything back or even thinking about it. What they are doing, however, is threatening us that it might not be available when needed. Yeah, we know that. It was stolen.

Why should they put anything back? They'll simply make taxpayers pay for Social Security a second time.

Moreover, the Peter they are robbing is the U.S. taxpayers.

A few days ago Oboma said (WE DO NOT HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM WE

HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM).. Now, that statement should win the Darwin

award this year. Just think we have four more years of this thinking to go.

Term limits should have been started a long time ago for these congress people................... ::

And now they're wanting to get rid of the President's term limit...

heathicus wrote:And now they're wanting to get rid of the President's term limit...

That's a bad idea. In fact, I would like to see term limits being imposed on all of Congress.