Posted on 03/12/2011 1:53:02 PM PST by neverdem
Obama's Social Security Hoax
The president will demagogue Social Security as his ticket to reelection.
Everyone knows that the U.S. budget is being devoured by entitlements. Everyone also knows that of the Big Three — Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security — Social Security is the most solvable.
Back-of-an-envelope solvable: Raise the retirement age, tweak the indexing formula (from wage inflation to price inflation), and means-test so that Warren Buffett’s check gets redirected to a senior in need.
The relative ease of the fix is what makes the Obama administration’s Social Security strategy so shocking. The new line from the White House is: no need to fix it because there is no problem. As Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.
This claim is a breathtaking fraud.
The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction.
If you don’t believe me, listen to the OMB’s own explanation (in the Clinton administration budget for fiscal year 2000 under then-director Jack Lew, the very same). The OMB explained that these trust-fund “balances” are nothing more than a “bookkeeping” device. “They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.”
In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains — nothing.
Here’s why. When your FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck, it does not get squirreled away in some lockbox in West Virginia where it’s kept until you...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Of course he’ll demogouge it. The key is for the Republicans to KEEP QUIET, even though it could easily lead to the economy crashing. If the Republicans try ANY type of real reform, they will get their heads handed to them in 2012, and still not even get it reformed. I base that on the viceral reactions just on this site, whenever I bring up anything regarding reform.
The Republicans MUST make Obama lead on reform, and then join him if it makes sense. If Obama chooses to not reform...so be it - we defeat him in 2012 and drag everyone forward (including the ones on this site that just want THEIR money...regardless of it killing the economy).
But, almost certainly, Obama will not lead on reform...so the best thing to do is forget about and hope China and Japan don’t call their loans to us (and, unfortunately, Japan almost certainly will).
bfl
“This claim is a breathtaking fraud.”
In the aftermath of all the lies told about Obamacare, it’s not clear what’s so breathtaking about this latest bit of mendacity. Seems to me it’s par for the course. Anyone surprised by this behavior strikes me as a bit naive 2 years into an administration governed by a Mob-like mentality.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, has has promised a budget for next year that includes the reform of entitlements. It’s due this April, IIRC.
He could start by explaining his own multiple social security numbers!
The mystery of Barack Obama continues
Of all these marvels, the latest mystery and probably most perplexing is that of Obama’s social security number. It appears that Obama has multiple identities in term of possessing numerous social security numbers. Orly Taitz, an attorney who has filed numerous suits against Obama regarding his eligibility to serve as president, appears to be the first to discover this. In her suit, representing a number of military officers who are refusing to serve under an ineligible commander in chief, she hired private investigator Neil Sankey to conduct research on Obama’s prior addresses and Social Society numbers. Using Intelius, Lexis Nexis, Choice Point and other public records, Sankey found around 25 Social Security numbers connected with Obama’s name.
However, it may not be as many as 25, since Sankey also searched using closely related names such as: “Barak Obama,” “Batock Obama,” “Barok Obama,” and “Barrack Obama.” There may very well be some Kenyans living in America with the same last name and a similar first name. In any case, I will exclude these records for the purpose of this research and focus only on names spelled exactly like his name. Moreover, we can verify many of the Social Security numbers as valid since they’re connected to addresses at which we know Obama resided. Needless to say, there are also a slew of address and social security numbers connected to addresses in states that Obama has no known connection to.
In Obama’s home state, Illinois, Sankey tracked down 16 different addresses for a Barack Obama or a Barack H. Obama, of which all are addresses he was known to have lived at. Two Social Security numbers appear for these addresses, one beginning with 042 and one starting 364.
In California, where Obama attended Occidental College, there are six addresses listed for him, all within easy driving distance of the college. However, there are three Social Security numbers connected to these addresses, 537 and two others, each beginning with 999.
There are no addresses listed in New York where he attended Columbia University, but there is one listed for him in nearby Jackson, NJ, with a Social Security number beginning with 485.
In Massachusetts – where Obama attended Harvard Law School – we find three addresses, all using the 042 Social Security number. After Obama was elected to the United States Senate in 2005, he moved into an apartment at 300 Massachusetts Ave NW; the Social Security number attached to that address is the 042 one. Yet, three years later, Obama used a different Social Security number for an address listed as: 713 Hart Senate Office Building. This was the address of his United States Senate office. This Social Security number began with 282 and was verified by the government in 2008.
This mystery grows even stranger as other addresses and Social Security numbers for Barack Obama appear in a dozen other states not known to be connected to him. Again, I am excluding those records names not spelled exactly like his name. Tennessee, one address with a Social Security number beginning with 427 Colorado, one address, with a Social Security number beginning with 456. Utah, two addresses, with two Social Security numbers beginning with 901 and 799.
Missouri has one address and one Social Security number beginning with 999. Florida has two addresses listed for his him, three if you count one listed as “Barry Obama.” One is connected to a Social Security number beginning with 762.
In Georgia there are three addresses listed for him, all with different Social Security numbers: 579, 420, and 423.
In Texas there are four different addresses listed for him, one is connected to Social Security number 675.
There are two addresses listed for Barack Obama in Oregon and one address listed for him in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
All told, there are 49 addresses and 16 different Social Security numbers listed for a person whose name is spelled “Barack Obama.” In some cases, the middle initial “H” is listed. If you were to expand the search to include closely related names such as: “Barac,” “Barak,” and “Barrack” Obama, you would find more than a dozen additional addresses and Social Security numbers.
Finally, the one Social Security number Obama most frequently used, the one beginning with 042, is a number issued in Connecticut sometime during 1976-1977, yet there is no record of Obama ever living or working in Connecticut. Indeed, during this time period Obama would have been 15-16 years old and living in Hawaii at the time.
This statement is CORRECT.
I realize that FactCheck.org is hardly held in high esteem by we Freepers but it is worth reading what they have to say about the supposed Social Security Trust Fund at THIS LINK:
Some senior Democrats are claiming that Social Security does not contribute "one penny" to the federal deficit. That’s not true. The fact is, the federal government had to borrow $37 billion last year to finance Social Security, and will need to borrow more this year. The red ink is projected to total well over half a trillion dollars in the coming decade.
I believe FactCheck is correct in this case but would be interested in a more trustworthy source of the data if anyone knows of one.
Probably just a rumor but I heard that the entitlement portion of that budget is going have 'goals' and not budgets. If so, the Tea Party is going to have to rise up and get ready to throw out the senior Republican leadership in the next election.
When we do get COLA, it's ALL going to go for the Part B premium.
All my bills went up. Food and fuel have sky rocketed.
Thanks for the link. I know there’s nothing in the Social Security Trust Fund. It’s well known that the feds started grabbing that money for the Treasury’s general obligations since the 1960s.
As far as paying out more in Social Security benefits than taking in from individual Social Security deductions, that’s been in the news for a while. I’d be shocked if Yahoo and Google didn’t have it on their news searches.
“Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, has has promised a budget for next year that includes the reform of entitlements. It’s due this April, IIRC.”
As much as we need reform, I hope it doesn’t get too far (in this round)...or the Reps are toast in 2012.
That “Means Testing” will eventually devolve to anybody retired with a decent nonunion pension in addition to Social Security. Work hard and invest all your life? You get screwed. Retire from IBM or Nucor or New York Life or Exxon or any of the plethora of decent companies that one way or the other reward you on the way out the door? You get screwed. Do an additional 26 years in the reserves after 4 years active duty? You get screwed. Do all of the above? You REALLY get screwed. That’s a great idea, from the point of view of the imprudent and nonindustrious. There is something wrong with changing the rules at the end of the game.
the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000. Do that and Social Security's long-term problem is solved.I'm not an economist and don't believe Robert Reich is either.
Could the fix really be this simple?
I pay into SS for forty years and have six more to go and NOW they want to change the rules? They keep pushing and pushing.
I don’t think it will affect people about to retire within the next few years.
What nobody is discussing is the way the money that is collected is squandered. A self-employed person pays more than 16% of their income into SS (the amount is the same with an employee, but employees personally pay only half their SS and the employer pays the rest); that money should be making money and not being used by the government to fund its other pork projects. Private insurance and pension programs don’t let the money sit around or don’t go out and spend it on fancy new offices, etc...I believe that’s called fraud. And that’s what the Govt has been doing with SS.
Aside from that, though, the means testing idea is a very poor one and makes it a form of welfare. If Warren Buffet has paid into it, he should have the right to collect: if he doesn’t want to do so and either turns it back or gives it to a charity (which is something many rich people do), that’s up to him.
“Orly Taitz, an attorney who has filed numerous suits against Obama regarding his eligibility to serve as president, appears to be the first to discover this. “
You better hurry up Orly. My money is on Obama’s records being destroyed by water damage from the tsunami that hit Hawaii.
Sorry, charlie, but I’m 9 years away from collecting social security and I intend to collect what I’ve paid for, by God.
Yup. In the echo chamber of online forums and GOP/Tea Party gatherings many conservatives have convinced themselves that the American public has "grown up" and is ready for entitlement reforms. I don't believe that for one moment. Touch Social Security before Obama proposes anything and we fall right into the Democrat trap and are likely get annihilated in 2012. This is a dangerous game and if we are not extremely careful all our electoral gains could be wiped out in the blink of an eye.
I hope I am wrong, but virtually every poll shows people want budget cuts in the abstract, but once asked specifics the public generally comes down overwhelmingly against virtually any cut - especially SS and Medicare. The GOP is fighting a herculean effort as it is just to cut a few billion dollars of discretionary funding here and there around the margins. The Democrats roll out Big Bird props and the American public becomes impossible to even convince to cut something as insignificant as PBS/NPR.
“There is something wrong with changing the rules at the end of the game.”
Actually, the rules were changed decades ago, when the money collected got dumped right into the general treasury. At that point, regardless of promises, it Social Security CEASED being a retirement plan and started to simply become another program to transfer wealth. At this point, it is even beyond that, as it now requires borrowing from future generations to pay today’s recipients.
The bigger question is whether we should let SS lead the way to taking this country to Third World status, or do we make a real effort to get our budget in balance, and possibly prevent that outcome. So, in effect, the question is whether it makes more sense to let the entire country go down in flames, or to reduce Social Security payouts (along with other reforms in major programs).
My vote is reform the entitlements and protect the country, although others simply seem to just want their money back.
Unfortunately the only hope at this point is to let the others have their way (for now), letting the debt build up for another 2 years - since the Republicans alone cannot touch Social Security (and Obama, of course, prefers seeing this country ultimately get trashed and this seems to be his ticket).
If we’re lucky, the country survives the two years...and the Republicans finally get to fix the rut of the problem. If we’re not lucky, it’s game over of the US.
Maybe, but I don't know how many make that much. I would have to see all the numbers. I wouldn't trust any rats' numbers. They have been giving us bogus numbers for Medicare & Medcaid since the beginning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.