The Social Security Trust Fund has not been 'looted'.

[HiPointDem]

17. um, because there's no need or intention of trading them?

if the US is stable, there's no need to trade them. if it's not, they're not worth much on international markets.

so why is this such a fetish of the right?

Congress has *always* borrowed excess SS taxes, because that was how the ORIGINAL LEGISLATION WAS SET UP in the 1930s.

The only thing that changed was the REAGAN-ERA INCREASE IN SS TAXES WHICH LED TO INCREASED AND ACCUMULATING BORROWING -- by necessity, because of over-taxation.

No looting has occurred UNTIL THEY DECIDE THEY WON'T PAY IT BACK.

and once they convince you the looting has already taken place, they don't have to pay it back. so you're already there in your own mind. but that just helps them.

the only economic change that's 'crumbling the pyramid' IS THE INCREASING CUT THE RICH ARE TAKING.

Demographics are almost totally irrelevant.

and that two or three trillion that is the nominal "value" of the securities -- well, Social Security has an obligation (which they do not call a liability - that implies a contract) of over fifteen trillion dollars...:

do you also notice that this supposed '15 trillion' represents only 3.5 percent of taxable payroll in 2008, whereas in 2003 the corresponding figure was $10 trillion but an even bigger 3.8 percent of taxable payroll?

i think you just see a big number, but you don't know what it really means.

what does that $15 trillion mean? can you explain it? can you explain the time window it represents and whether the dollars are inflation-adjusted or nominal?

why does the obligation get bigger, but the obligation as a percent of gdp & taxable payroll get smaller, hmm?