Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pinto

(106,886 posts)
29. MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY- Part 2
Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:29 PM
Nov 2012

Myths and misstatements of fact frequently circulate on the Internet, in email and on websites, and are repeated in endless loops of misinformation. One common set of such misinformation involves a series of questions about the history of the Social Security system.

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

<more at>

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This is what many saw ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #1
This John2 Nov 2012 #11
I wouldn't say ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #16
Yup, I picked up on that too. Jackpine Radical Nov 2012 #53
VERY well stated! & Precisely right, there were those here, who when we lost the decision against patrice Nov 2012 #12
This. mac56 Nov 2012 #24
+1 nt ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #28
We have our own JNelson6563 Nov 2012 #33
Falsely implying that Democrats with whom you disagree of being disloyal is a McCarthy tactic. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #51
lolz JNelson6563 Nov 2012 #59
There is no fiscal cliff leftstreet Nov 2012 #2
Thank-you. robinlynne Nov 2012 #4
Exactly. He should reject the term. Call their bluff, then start from sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #7
Agreed, strongly agreed! PO should publicly reject "fiscal cliff" & so should we! nt patrice Nov 2012 #14
It's a tactical marketing decision BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #19
Bingo ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #23
Wrong. They deny the truth about marketing leftstreet Nov 2012 #34
You're kidding, right? Or, are you ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #43
No Dem will have his political capital again in our lifetimes leftstreet Nov 2012 #49
Sloganism ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #57
Because Democrats staged healthcare 'town halls' leftstreet Nov 2012 #64
Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #68
He could have done all those things?? Really? BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #45
Yes. Those are the reasons people elected him leftstreet Nov 2012 #50
He got it because of 9/11, and cowed Congress with the political capital BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #52
No ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #58
The difference is ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #20
Heretic. Jakes Progress Nov 2012 #25
so caving isn't really caving hfojvt Nov 2012 #3
That'll show 'em. cliffordu Nov 2012 #5
no, it won't be any more hfojvt Nov 2012 #9
The pre-cave cave, but it being from Mother Jones is unfathomable. I too plethoro Nov 2012 #6
I strongly disagree with Corn. bvar22 Nov 2012 #8
MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY- Part 2 pinto Nov 2012 #29
It is NO myth... bvar22 Nov 2012 #41
Ah geez. I didn't "weasel & worm, distort & evade, twist & torture". I simply reposted SSA statement pinto Nov 2012 #44
So then you agree with every fact I stated in the above post. bvar22 Nov 2012 #47
This message was self-deleted by its author bvar22 Nov 2012 #48
Same facts, different characterization zipplewrath Nov 2012 #10
If Republicans get away with the deductions lie, Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #13
+1 forestpath Nov 2012 #17
Yup. Sounds like spin to me. joeunderdog Nov 2012 #56
there is good reason to think he will NOT cave this time (on tax cuts) Enrique Nov 2012 #15
I don't John2 Nov 2012 #22
they are openly talking about the Medicare eligibility age Enrique Nov 2012 #31
It's a 'fiscal bluff', R's are terrified to cut the bloated war budget.... grahamhgreen Nov 2012 #18
'Fiscal Bluff'. I like that better. It is more honest. sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #27
Agreed. This Congress needs to keep their phuking mitts off of Social Security AND Medicare! nt patrice Nov 2012 #36
I like "Bluff" because a bluff is not only a cliff, but a deception, and it resembles grahamhgreen Nov 2012 #42
Yes, it is a great play on the word 'cliff', lol! Related geographically, but sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #55
We had better think long and hard on this subject... kentuck Nov 2012 #21
the "white flag" has already been waved before negotiations have started. snooze nt msongs Nov 2012 #26
FIGHT Congress!!! -> contact info: patrice Nov 2012 #30
Obama could not let them expire last time because that would have rasied takes on those JoePhilly Nov 2012 #32
My case for letting the Bush Tax Cuts end, it ALL depends upon what we get for it: patrice Nov 2012 #35
Of course, that's what happened. Thanks JoePhilly That's exactly what would Cha Nov 2012 #37
+1,000 to what you said. freshwest Nov 2012 #61
Actually Joe. In the last election, the President said that he would let ALL taxes increase bluestate10 Nov 2012 #39
Yup ... I was describing the promises he made in 2008 ... JoePhilly Nov 2012 #46
I favor Warren Buffet's plan. bluestate10 Nov 2012 #38
Matthew Iglesias calls it a "Triumph" .. Cha Nov 2012 #40
Thanks for that one. freshwest Nov 2012 #62
Sure! :) Cha Nov 2012 #63
It was, but not ProSense Nov 2012 #65
I saw the stupid last night Cha Nov 2012 #69
Geez....are they ALL IN ON IT?!?! I am still stunned after seeing a clip of David Plouffe on forestpath Nov 2012 #54
K & R freshwest Nov 2012 #60
Democrats have been putting up a united front. ProSense Nov 2012 #66
I think the only difference between getting to his intended goal now or later is lunatica Nov 2012 #67
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»OBAMA's Trojan Horse - No...»Reply #29