Whenever I’ve heard political opponents debate whether the Social Security “Trust Fund” was (is) a Ponzi Scheme, I’ve always just assumed that they meant (at the worst) it couldn’t sustain it’s viability because (like any Ponzi Scheme) without a continually increasing number of donors, the income generated would never be enough to pay the promised benefits. I never assumed that the whole thing was designed from the beginning to help fund the general spending of the government.
Then I read this October 16, 1999 – Cato Institute article.
So… Based on the actual words and intentions of the Social Security Act – SS is even worse than Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme – EVEN IF the income base continually grew – coupled with budget shortfalls, dependent on deficit spending – it was designed from the get-go to depend on new taxes to pay for the benefits that were sold by telling people that FICA taxes would be the real source of funds. The whole thing is based on a lie, except for the fact that it’s all described in the law. We were (and still are) too trusting in promotional hype when it comes to buying government crap.
This quote is from a recent Ron Paul newsletter –
|“Interest payments on our federal bond debt likely will amount to about $500 billion for fiscal year 2011, an average of $41 billion per month. Federal tax revenues vary by month, but should total around $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion for FY 2011– an average of perhaps $180 billion per month. So clearly the federal government has sufficient tax revenue to make interest payments to our creditors. For now, those interest payments represent about 12% of the total federal budget. What nobody wants to admit is this: even if the federal government has only $1.5 trillion remaining to spend in 2011 after interest payments, this is PLENTY to fund the constitutional functions of government. After all, the entire federal budget in 1990 was about $1 trillion.”|
Raising the debt limit is only necessary if we borrow MORE than we have already borrowed. In other words, it’s only necessary if we don’t quit INCREASING the amount that we borrow… not increasing the amount that we spend, but what we have to borrow in order to spend.
There isn’t enough outrage to go around.