Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dear Mr Bush
Letter Addressed to the White HOuse ^ | April 7, 2005 | Peter de Fazio

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 ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: socialsecurity; trustfund
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
Californians! Do you believe what your congressman is peddling?

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.

1 posted on 05/13/2005 3:47:48 PM PDT by El Oviedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

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.


2 posted on 05/13/2005 3:50:30 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

I'm continually amazed how many supposedly intelligent people don't know that there is no Trust Fund with their name on it.


3 posted on 05/13/2005 3:50:40 PM PDT by beandog (The only time I was wrong was the time I thought I was wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

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.


4 posted on 05/13/2005 3:51:12 PM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

I hear folks at Enron invested in funds to. Records on paper, no less.

Saw how worthless those were.....


5 posted on 05/13/2005 3:51:40 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud (REMEMBER - If you send it, they'll spend it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

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.


6 posted on 05/13/2005 3:52:33 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Proud Member: Internet Pajama Wearers for Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo
While there might be a moral obligation to provide some benefits to those paying in, hasn't the SCOTUS ruled that there is no legal obligation? The Congressman is wrong. Imagine that!
7 posted on 05/13/2005 3:53:11 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (The murder of Terri Schindler Schiavo - NOT IN OUR NAME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo
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.

While that may be true, there's no getting around the fact that the SS Trust Fund represents no actual value. Any money paid into the fund will have to be confiscated and paid AGAIN (or have an equal amount cut from the budget).
8 posted on 05/13/2005 3:54:14 PM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

Every ponzi scheme eventually gets to the level of implosion.


9 posted on 05/13/2005 3:54:58 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (If you must filibuster, let the Constitution do the talkin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

And nowhere in the rules that apply to government obligations will you find a requirement that these IOUs be honored.


10 posted on 05/13/2005 3:55:57 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

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.


11 posted on 05/13/2005 3:56:15 PM PDT by Maceman (Too nuanced for a bumper sticker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
See the case of Fleming vs. Nestor where the Supreme Court ruled that there is not guaranteed right to Social Security benefits. Right on the Social Security Administrations web site, no less!!!
12 posted on 05/13/2005 3:56:23 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (The murder of Terri Schindler Schiavo - NOT IN OUR NAME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo
Print Note: This page is excerpted from the web site of U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio, Fourth District, ,b>Oregon. http://www.house.gov/defazio/.

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?

13 posted on 05/13/2005 3:57:55 PM PDT by CAluvdubya (Don't let them Bork Bolton!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo
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.

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.

14 posted on 05/13/2005 4:00:51 PM PDT by Who dat?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

Buzz off. Social Security needs to be ended ASAP.


15 posted on 05/13/2005 4:03:23 PM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

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.


16 posted on 05/13/2005 4:05:37 PM PDT by Argus (Omnia taglinea in tres partes divisa est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo
The President is correct - it's an empty box full of IOUs now see there you start out with facts, that is not acceptable to the argument here.
17 posted on 05/13/2005 4:24:48 PM PDT by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

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.


18 posted on 05/13/2005 4:26:13 PM PDT by NavVet (“Benedict Arnold was wounded in battle fighting for America, but no one remembers him for that.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

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"?


19 posted on 05/13/2005 4:32:41 PM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CAluvdubya

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!


20 posted on 05/13/2005 4:34:43 PM PDT by El Oviedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson