Right LBJ was the problem, prior SS was a separate account not in the general fund.

I assume that everyone is aware that "that there is now a move being put forward by fiscal conservatives regarding Social Security retirement payments." is NOT TRUE and was made up.

As is this...."This would, proponents say, reduce the national debt."

ALL MADE UP....not true. Simply, it appears, just stirring the pot and not even worthy, as it's not true.

Sounds like good old election year third rail "scare the old folks" tactics

:eek::eek::eek:

Concept has been batted around more than once and more than recently.

Here's a bit from a while back:
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp...i-econ-sec.pdf

It's called creative accounting. By including SS in the general budget LBJ was able to take credit for a balanced budget. He offset the cost of the Vietnam war (on paper) with the FICA taxes earmarked for SS. It gave the impression that we had a balanced budget. There was really no other reason to consolidate SS into the federal budget, either then or now. As you know SS benefi payments are a mandatory obligation, not discretionary, and does not require annual appropriations by Congress.

No doubt....BUT

It was not covered "recently" in the Washington Post !!!

And to take an article on welfare fraud and turn it into something totally opposite, to me anyway, is stirring the pot for some reason.

Social Security was mentioned in passing in an article about the rules on welfare and a lady signing up in a new Mercedes because it is allowed to own that car and collect welfare.

Big difference in my opinion. If I have insulted you or anyone I apologize. Just seems to me that we need, not lies, but truth in discussion 1

Not worth the time to discuss. One must always consider the topic and the source. Do like me and go enjoy yourself! :)

There is always talk about Social Security going broke, but you never hear we have to cut welfare because it's going broke. Guess it's because most of those that get SS paid into it, but most of those getting welfare didn't. Interesting.

Means testing already started a few years ago. If you earn a certain amount of money, you will pay a higher Medicare premium. The higher your income the higher your premium will be.

So, for example, if you sell a lot of stocks one year, taking big profits, you might expect to pay a higher Medicare premium the following year.

The problem with it is that it's not indexed for inflation. Right now no one cares because it only hits those who are considered wealthy. But as incomes rise for future generations, millions will be affected. This will be the same as the Alternative Minimum Tax. At first it was only designed to hit a few of the top income earners. But as years went by it affected millions of taxpayers because it was not indexed for inflation.

If there is a Social Security means test which may prevent some of those that have paid into it from benefitting from their forced past SS contributions during employment, isn't that, in effect, a tax?

Taxation without representation will go to the Supreme Court before ever being enacted.

So, in the future, it will be more of a welfare program? Everyone must pay into it but you only get back what they think you need. Isn't that welfare?

The Congress could vote for all of us "constituents" in the country to have the same retirement and health/life/dental/optical/prescription/long-term-care insurances they have.

That would be a nice method of "means" testing: Anybody who's earned less pension and insurance than Congressional members earned gets the same package members of Congress get after being in office for 5 years......

Retirement Benefits of Congress Vs. You | Bankrate.com

That's too easy, make them work for a living.

You should run for office. I would vote for you.

In our politically divided country, it's no longer necessary for something to be true, it just has to sound like it could be true.