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

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
13. I understand the fear of changing the assets from 'SS' to the General Fund.
Fri Dec 23, 2011, 12:59 PM
Dec 2011

We've seen the way corporates have fiddled with their input to the tax base, and stolen from the taxpayers with their own form of welfare. At the same time, human needs, under GOP rule, offer 'grants' that are temporary, one-time solutions to long-term issues.

I think this is the main fear of trusting the General Fund, and the other part, sadly enough, is economic class. Some people get a lot more out of SS programs which are not means tested, and don't want to be lumped in with the ones they consider lower or less hard working.

The GOP take everyone's tax funds out of the General Fund while they dismantle the safety net and entire systems state by state. And they've made no bones about getting rid of all things they term socialist, such as *ding ding* Social Security. Hey, the private sector has done such a great job on private pensioning, huh?

The media is the GOP's tool, generating support or opposition to government programs that were the mainstay of many people's survival when the private sector finds no profit there. Once the people are out of the public eye and into private schemes, they are dismissed, and many do not survive when the profits are taken out.

What we need to do is to reframe the argument about what the General Fund and General Welfare means in this country. I know Europeans who tell me, yes, they pay higher taxes into their General Fund. But they consider themselves to all be citizens, have made the commitments required to be citizens, and don't worry about getting their fair share in return. At least, in those countries who haven't surrendered to the GOP, 'everything must be private' meme.

People holding on the Social Security 'lockbox' theory have reasons to fear the lessening of payroll taxes within the compartments of the system as it was set up. I support that system, and all the New Deal programs. But, things are being re-defined now. After decades of wingnut propaganda, they are struggling to make the arguments for progressive government.

During this same period of time, the GOP has been pillaging of the US Treasury and 'starving the beast.' What a laugh, they are the BEAST.

We've got to get to the basics, like OWS says.

Time to end the construct of 'I paid in this much, thus I should get this much' while the next door neighbor lives in terror from month to month because their SS payment is so much lower. Time to end the arguments of 'welfare queens, maybe they're not really disabled and immigrants and minorities are stealing my SS.'

Time to go back to the General Welfare clause and realize why Thomas Paine wrote Agrarian Justice. The same thing he wrote, enshrined in the SS website, remains true today. And it's way past time to recognize that if you are alive, you deserve the means to LIVE and a place to EXIST.

Interesting times we live in, much wailing and gnashing of teeth now, and even more to come.

Recommendations

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

The Payroll Tax Cut opens a door between the General Fund and the totally separately taxed fund for RC Dec 2011 #1
That is the real reason this particular tax cut was set up as it was in the first place, tabatha Dec 2011 #3
Why the money shuffle? grantcart Dec 2011 #9
How is "no cap" more progressive in this economy? phleshdef Dec 2011 #18
Thats an empty "slippery slope" argument. The "open door" is a product of ideological imagination. phleshdef Dec 2011 #16
Just to be clear, you're siding with Michelle Bachmann on this? MilesColtrane Dec 2011 #19
You are seeing what you want to see. RC Dec 2011 #21
There is already a maximum yearly payout for SocSec eridani Dec 2011 #24
Which is funny because creeksneakers2 Dec 2011 #29
No, it wouldn't. The rich would still get benefits eridani Dec 2011 #32
That's not possible creeksneakers2 Dec 2011 #28
Who exactly is behind this conspiracy? creeksneakers2 Dec 2011 #27
The Neocons are. They want to make the general fund a sacred cow that cannot do social spending. joshcryer Dec 2011 #37
Thank you. They want to be able to say that the Government has to fund SS turning it into a sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #31
So the "general fund" should be untouchable? joshcryer Dec 2011 #38
The general fund has been giving iou's to the social security fund for years. shraby Dec 2011 #43
Why cut payroll taxes, then? PETRUS Dec 2011 #2
I think it is because it helps businesses. tabatha Dec 2011 #4
That's a reasonable supposition. PETRUS Dec 2011 #6
Yes, there are better options. But they would not be passed by the House. tabatha Dec 2011 #8
Tabatha, what you seem to fail to realize is that the coupling of GF and SS is the real problem ThomWV Dec 2011 #5
"The problem is that by following our current practice of using Social Security System income" tabatha Dec 2011 #7
The trust fund represents *future obligations* ("DEBT") to US taxpayers--there is no Romulox Dec 2011 #10
Social Security Trust Fund - the facts tabatha Dec 2011 #11
None of that contradicts anything I posted. The "Trust Fund Surplus" must be collected in NEW TAXES Romulox Dec 2011 #12
The Trust Fund Surplus has been accumulating since the days of Reagan. tabatha Dec 2011 #14
Nope. Every penny has been spent. SS is 100% Pay-As-You-Go. nt Romulox Dec 2011 #15
Wrong. The trust fund was built up starting in the 80s to PREPAY boomer retirement eridani Dec 2011 #25
Every red cent has been "lent" to the US government, and spent. It's sad, but true. nt Romulox Dec 2011 #26
In the form of T-bills. If those are imaginary, then so are the ones that China-- eridani Dec 2011 #33
No. They aren't "T-Bills" (they're "special issues".) But that's not the point. Romulox Dec 2011 #39
Future taxpayers are the third party creeksneakers2 Dec 2011 #30
Nonsense. SS is supposed to be INTERGENERATIONALLY SUSTAINABLE. Future taxpayers Romulox Dec 2011 #40
I don't get what you mean creeksneakers2 Dec 2011 #42
Social Security is an entitlement program by virtue of the fact that participants are entitled to it lumberjack_jeff Dec 2011 #17
You don't have a right to receive any specific amount of SS. So that logic is off. nt Romulox Dec 2011 #41
I'm sorry but that argument doesn't really add up at all. phleshdef Dec 2011 #20
..and after the economy recovers... kentuck Dec 2011 #22
Let everything revert, including all the Bush tax cuts. Or completely redo the entire code. phleshdef Dec 2011 #23
Indeed, and that will happen, people don't get this. joshcryer Dec 2011 #35
SS has been part of the unified budget since 1969. joshcryer Dec 2011 #34
I understand the fear of changing the assets from 'SS' to the General Fund. freshwest Dec 2011 #13
I don't understand it unless we're to believe the "general fund" is untouchable. joshcryer Dec 2011 #36
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Factcheck - on Tax Cut, S...»Reply #13