Is Social Security a disgrace?

[nhboy]

"On Monday, John McCain told a town-hall audience in Denver, “Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that’s a disgrace. It’s an absolute disgrace, and it’s got to be fixed.”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16149.html

 

[Bruzilla]

McCain isn't saying SS is a disgrace, just how it is being funded, and he's right. The Congress has been robbing the SS trust fund for decades and leaving behind IOUs that can never be repaid. This is why there's no money besides current SS revenues to pay for benefits, and that is a disgrace. If a private pension fund did that, the managers of that fund would be in jail.

 

[wintersprings]

Its a ponzi schme. Nothing more than a transfer of wealth from producers (Kids) to non-producers (Mom and Dad), so they can go on a cruise ship.

Keep working kids, I want mine to.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

McCain isn't saying SS is a disgrace, just how it is being funded, and he's right. The Congress has been robbing the SS trust fund for decades and leaving behind IOUs that can never be repaid. This is why there's no money besides current SS revenues to pay for benefits, and that is a disgrace. If a private pension fund did that, the managers of that fund would be in jail.

Exactly! But Congress won't let workers put a portion of their money in a private account as then they couldn't rob it!

 

[bcp]

yes its screwed up, but I hardly think that anyone on social security as their only means of retirement is going on too many cruises.

 

[ImnoMensa]

OK so who is at fault for this.? Who suggested Social Security in the first place.

Social Security History FAQs Internet Myths

 

[Lenny]

Social Security History FAQs Internet Myths

This SSA page is too cute for words. The "promises" supposedly made by Franklin 'The King' Roosevelt are countered with that the Social Scurity Act stipulates. I wonder if that's what NObama intends to use as his defense in five or six years.

 

[wintersprings]

This SSA page is too cute for words. The "promises" supposedly made by Franklin 'The King' Roosevelt are countered with that the Social Scurity Act stipulates. I wonder if that's what NObama intends to use as his defense in five or six years.

Same words the Dem's have told the country for the last 8 years.

It ain't broke, so we ain't going to fix it.

Let the kids work harder for my retirement please.

 

[awpitt]

McCain isn't saying SS is a disgrace, just how it is being funded, and he's right. The Congress and the President has been robbing the SS trust fund for decades and leaving behind IOUs that can never be repaid. This is why there's no money besides current SS revenues to pay for benefits, and that is a disgrace. If a private pension fund did that, the managers of that fund would be in jail.

Missed one.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Missed one.

Missed several according to you. The President is the Executive Branch, responsible for enforcing the laws Congress passes. Without a line item veto, all he can do is approve, disapprove or let the law become effective without signing it. The House is responsible for starting revenue bills.

 

[awpitt]

Missed several according to you. The President is the Executive Branch, responsible for enforcing the laws Congress passes. Without a line item veto, all he can do is approve, disapprove or let the law become effective without signing it. The House is responsible for starting revenue bills.

True but Congress just doesn't make or change laws unilaterally. The POTUS must sign in order for legislation to become law or, in the case of a veto, they can override, which doesn't happen very often. If POTUS doesn't sign the bill within ten days while Congress is in session, it becomes law. If Congress ajourns before ten days, it the bill is pocket vetoed.

 

[Bruzilla]

Missed several according to you. The President is the Executive Branch, responsible for enforcing the laws Congress passes. Without a line item veto, all he can do is approve, disapprove or let the law become effective without signing it. The House is responsible for starting revenue bills.

Thank you... you beat me to it.

 

[Bruzilla]

True but Congress just doesn't make or change laws unilaterally. The POTUS must sign in order for legislation to become law or, in the case of a veto, they can override, which doesn't happen very often. If POTUS doesn't sign the bill within ten days while Congress is in session, it becomes law. If Congress ajourns before ten days, it the bill is pocket vetoed.

To CWO's point, the President has no control over funds. Only Congress can control that.

 

[awpitt]

To CWO's point, the President has no control over funds. Only Congress can control that.

That would be true if we were still governed by the Articles of Confederation where bills passed by the Congress automatically became law because there was no president.

While the Congress and the POTUS each have unigue roles, they both have control via the process of how a bill becomes a law which includes the President.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

That would be true if we were still governed by the Articles of Confederation where bills passed by the Congress automatically became law because there was no president.

While the Congress and the POTUS each have unigue roles, they both have control via the process of how a bill becomes a law which includes the President.

Or in the case of Social Security, many Presidents.

If the House doesn't initiate a bill spending Social Security monies, the President can't sign it, veto it or ignore it either.