A Liberal Democrat explains the why the Social Security Trust Fund is safe (video humor)

youtube/ from xtranormal ^ | Mar 26, 2011 | unhappyview54

[sickoflibs]

Liberal : I can’t believe what Republicans want to do now.

Taxpayer: What are you talking about?

Liberal : They want to destroy the most successful government program in the history of the US.

Taxpayer: What program is that?

Liberal : Social Security. They want to steal the Social Security trust fund to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. Fortunately Senate Majority Harry Reid said he will stop Republicans from taking it.

Taxpayer: Did you say that Social Security has a trust fund? What on earth are you talking about?

Liberal : Social Security saved the surplus for over 25 years and now it has a 3 Trillion dollars nest egg to pay benefits , and Republicans want to steal it to pay for the Bush tax cuts on the rich.

Taxpayer: The Federal government has 3 Trillion dollars saved? Where is the social security money now?

Liberal : In security bills

Taxpayer: What do you mean security bills?

Liberal : Social Security invested it in government securities

Taxpayer: Are you saying the federal government still has the 3 Trillion dollars that they got from Social Security?

Liberal : Yes! They invested that money in important things like public school teachers, green energy and Obama’s economic security bill.

Taxpayer: You mean they spent it all?

(Clip)

Liberal : I am a progressive and we are very smart.

Taxpayer: Why do you think that?

Liberal : Because Rachel Maddow said so..

Taxpayer: Yes, she is right. You just taught me that the government having a 14 trillion dollar deficit is the same as it having a 3 trillion dollar nest egg because we are so rich. With brilliant ideas like that, no wonder our country is screwed.

(watch full video at link)

[sickoflibs]

Description from link: "A liberal democrat explains how social security has a 3 trillion dollar trust fund saved when the country is 14 trillion dollars in debt. Yes, these are real liberal arguments that I heard on MSNBC many times."

More idiotic arguments directly from liberal Democrats mouths. I just wish Republicans were calling Democrats out on them like in this video.

[sickoflibs]

The Peter Schiff/Austrian Economics ping. (Washington Bankrupting our Nation by Spending your past, present and future money!)

[sickoflibs]

Sunday humor ping!

[RatsDawg]

good video! lol

[mel]

LATER

[wintertime]

I ***love** these guys.

I wish we could have a 24 hour, **conservative**, Internet based news program. These guys could be contributors to the content.

[FatherofFive]

I just wish Republicans were calling Democrats out on them like in this video.

Ross Perot, before he went insane, used simple charts in the campaign to make points like this.

It is really not that hard to do.

[ken21]

remember when bob dope (senator, kansas)

helped the democrats spend the social security surplus?

[VideoDoctor]

A good laugh at the expense of the “brain dead” Liberals.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Here is what they said from 1964!

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/usa1964-2.html

Self-Supporting

“The program is designed so that contributions plus interest on the investments of the social security trust funds will be sufficient to meet all of the costs of benefits and administration, now and into the indefinite future—without any subsidy from the general funds of the Government. Both the Congress and the Executive Branch, regardless of political party in power, have scrupulously provided in advance for full financing of all liberalizations in the program.”

And here is where your money went! Read and Weep!

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n4

[jacquej]

I am wondering if you have a good source for Ross Perot going insane?

Just wondering if it is a fact or a supposition.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”And here is where your money went! Read and Weep!”

Thanks. The Democrats argument the video was illustrating is right at the SS administration link you provided:
“Far from being “worthless IOUs,” the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government. “

Of course a legal bond sold by the Federal government to a bondholder is NOT the same as the government holding an IOU to itself. We know the FICA taxpayers are not the holders of these bonds and do not have to be paid back legally(constitutionally).

Both parties have raised income taxes on SS benefits, basically giving the SS benefits back to themselves rather than the FICA taxpayers(who already paid income taxes on the FICA taxes), so the recipients had no legal claim to the money.

It's a big lie! Not to mention destroying the dollar.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Of course a legal bond sold by the Federal government to a bondholder is NOT the same as the government holding an IOU to itself. We know the FICA taxpayers are not the holders of these bonds and do not have to be paid back legally(constitutionally).

Even if they admit there is a problem, it's always a future problem, so kick it down the road.

Robert Reich: "You don’t want government to hold back, you want government right now, yes, the deficit’s a long-term problem, but right now you don’t want to cut government spending, yet Eric Cantor and the Republicans are indulging, you hear it over and over and over."

It would be inconceivable to try anything responsible.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Robert Reich: “You don’t want government to hold back, you want government right now, yes, the deficit’s a long-term problem, but right now you don’t want to cut government spending, yet Eric Cantor and the Republicans are indulging, you hear it over and over and over.”

Cutting government now involves near term pain, not something politicians are usually elected for. Theywill always claim it's not compassionate because of the economy.

[runninglips]

The rumor that Perot is or became insane, is Progressive propaganda spewed forth by Rush, Medved and others. Along with the false reality that Ross caused Clinton to become President, it is repeated endlessly when simple facts could prove otherwise. Bush lost to Clinton because the people saw through his facade of Conservatism. Bush did not care to continue as President enough to "tend to his base", and raised taxes, and in general showed his true colors as a member of the "aristocrat class". He is the perfect mentor for Boehner, the same type of "mole" placed in position to stymie real chance of change. People see truth, and vote with their "hope". If Perot had not become frightened, he would have won the election. My theory is that he came into the race NOT to win, but to influence the course of government, then bow out. He underestimated this "HOPE" that Americans need to latch on to, and was not prepared to run the Executive branch.

The Republican v Democrat race that our Presidential popularity poll has become, is identical to the "choice" of "appointees" of the Federal Reserve. Americans are given a list of approved candidates to choose from, the President is given a list of approved candidates to choose from. Imagine if when you reached the age of maturity, and were given a list of jobs to choose from, chosen by others. How about a list of wives? Some freedom we have going on here huh?

[FatherofFive]

I supported Perot in the early part of his campaign.

I use the term "insane" to reflect some of his decisions.

He ran a successful corporation - leadership and succession planning are two impportant CEO functions. How he thought James Stockdale could function as a VP was a crazy decision - and yes, shows he was not prepared to run the Executive branch.

I think your theory is crazy as well. "Get in to bow out" is not rational.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Cutting government now involves near term pain, not something politicians are usually elected for.

Yes, and his preposterous assertion that flushing money doesn't matter (not when we have a Dem POTUS anyway) shows me that he would try to destroy America even if there was almost total opposition to him and his circle of elite and totalitarian leftists.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Yes, and his preposterous assertion that flushing money doesn't matter (not when we have a Dem POTUS anyway) shows me that he would try to destroy America even if there was almost total opposition to him and his circle of elite and totalitarian leftists. “

Obama will put re-election over ideology just as he changed all his WOT positions. That is why he compromised on extending Bush tax cuts. Him pushing short term spending cuts does NOT ask him get re-elected, ask Bush ala 2004 Prescription drugs.

This third war could help him 2012, or it could backfire. Right now he has some cheerleaders for his opposition party.

[sickoflibs]

RE :” Yes, and his preposterous assertion that flushing money doesn't matter (not when we have a Dem POTUS anyway) shows me that he would try to destroy America even if there was almost total opposition to him and his circle of elite and totalitarian leftists. “

Democrats have no monopoly on flushing money. But your point reminds me of something I saw that interesting.

Jesse Jackson does a Saturday night show 'Upfront with JJ' where he and his progressive socialists spend a hour talking about how the Federal government should ‘create’ jobs for the poor (a huge make works program) and raise taxes on the rich to pay for it . The constant theme is “ The government must save the poor ”.

Saturday 'Upfront with JJ' did a episode on energy and one of the progressives says :” What do we need all this energy for? Most of it is wasted.. ”. He was taking the green position which means the MOST regressive tax on the poor from higher energy prices. Either these progressive socialists dont understand supply-demand-price, or worse, it's all a big lie that they care for the poor. Seems like the second here.