Skip to comments.Dear Mr Bush
Posted on 05/13/2005 3:47:48 PM PDT by El Oviedo
I was disappointed to read your statement that "there is no trust fund, just IOUs," from your recent Social Security "town hall" meeting in West Virginia. You went on to question the ability and willingness of the federal government to honor its debt to Social Security. I respectfully urge you to reconsider your attack on the Trust Fund. The federal government has a legal and a moral obligation to fulfill the promises that have been made to Social Security recipients in whose name the bonds in the Trust Fund are held.
(Excerpt) Read more at house.gov ...
A Trust Fund is something that should not be touched, borrowed and spent.
The President is correct - it's an empty box full of IOUs.
The most obvious reply to this is that if there really IS a trust fund, then why can't we put 100% of our contributions into private accounts? After all, since there is a trust fund, we don't need the funds that current payers into the system are providing.
I'm continually amazed how many supposedly intelligent people don't know that there is no Trust Fund with their name on it.
Yeah, like you congressman have a moral obligation to stop bullshitting your constituents. The President was telling the truth. The "trust fund" IS a drawer full of IOU's from the government to the government.
I hear folks at Enron invested in funds to. Records on paper, no less.
Saw how worthless those were.....
Oh come on now... I was planning on writing a bunch of IOUs to myself and then use them as collateral on a huge loan I want to take out from the bank.
Every ponzi scheme eventually gets to the level of implosion.
And nowhere in the rules that apply to government obligations will you find a requirement that these IOUs be honored.
Of course there is a trust fund. I have one just like it that I use to pay my mortgage every month.
It works like this: Every month I take every penny I make and lend it to myself. Then I write myself an IOU and spend all the money on stuff. I keep all the IOUs in a lockbox. Then, when it comes time to pay my morgage, I simply endorse enough of my IOUs over to the bank to equal the mortgage.
OK. I haven't actually tried this yet. But I'm sure the bank won't have a problem with it when I start paying my mortgage from my lockbox next month.
As Adam Smith said: "What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom...."
Obviously, the corollary must also be true. I figure if this system is so prudent that it has been adopted by our own wise government experts and statesmen, that it must be prudent for me to do it as well.
Doesn't he represent Oregon?
Californians! Do you believe what your congressman is peddling?
California doesn't have to take the blame for this one, do we?
Here we go again. I either subscribed to a newspaper or magazine or something once must have been 1983/4/5 or somewhere thereabouts.
A guy wrote a 6 or 8 or 10 part series of articles that covered social security. He was some sort of amateur detective/lawyer or something what went through social security in tedious detail. He started with the language that originally started it, analyzed that, went on to sift through all the subsequent changes, analyzed those on and on and on.
It was very technical and dry and, not being a lawyer, I doubt I could fully appreciate all the work that went into it.
At any rate, it was his final determination that the federal government has NO (ZERO!) legal obligation to fulfill anything. His claim was that they may do various things to avoid political repurcussions, but had no legal obligation to deliver a cent.
That was 20 years ago, so maybe they changed something since, but see no compelling reason why they would.
Buzz off. Social Security needs to be ended ASAP.
I just finished reading an excellent biography of Charles Ponzi. He did a stretch in prison for his premature (1920) version of Social Security. He should have waited a few years and just gone to work for the federal government. The Dems would be hailing him as the savior of the American working man.
Gee, I guess if we keep calling it a trust fund, maybe it will turn into one.
As a side note: Attorneys go to jail if they spend their client's trust fund, congressmen just get pay raises.
The thing is, the President referred to "IOUs", but Fazio now has him calling them "worthless IOUs". Wanna bet within a few days, it will be widely reported that President Bush claimed they are "worthless IOUs"?
My apologies. I was told he wss a congressman up North - so through a rush judgment I thought he represents the Bay Area. So sorry Californians!
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.