Fix Social Security Now


Fix Social Security Now

A gathering point for people concerned with the coming crisis in Social Security.

Website: http://www.fixssnow.org
Members: 23
Latest Activity: Feb 10, 2012

What Does Fix Social Security Mean?


1. The System Is Broken.  Any Plan Should First Fix The System Before It Seeks To Pay For A Broken One


2. The Government Needs To Show Me That They Can Manage The Money That I Have Given Them Well Before They Ask For More


3. More Choice Will Give People Better Benefits At A Lower Cost


Our Billboards In The Atlanta Market




Discussion Forum

Rise Up America

Started by Linda Starr Jan 26, 2012. 0 Replies

My friend Dick McDonald (former Arthur Anderson CPA who was J. Paul Getty's CPA for a decade) created a very detailed system called Rise Up Amerca which will not only "save" Social Security but will…Continue

Tags: security, social

The National Debt Is The Primary Problem For Social Security

Started by joetheeconomist. Last reply by Marvin Wade Jan 10, 2012. 32 Replies

Social Security survives based on payroll taxes.  It accounts for 90% or more of the revenue that supports Social Security.  Anything that reduces payroll taxes will send Social Security into…Continue

The Spend Less, Make More Solution

Started by joetheeconomist May 28, 2011. 0 Replies

Our Solution Works On Time Tested Principles.  These principles has worked in thousands of industries for thousands of years. Make More Instead of raising taxes and lowering benefits, first let's fix…Continue

Let's Not Throw Money At A Broken System

Started by joetheeconomist May 27, 2011. 0 Replies

The Government Needs To Show Me That They Can Manage The Money That I Have Given Them Well Before They Ask For More The Trust Fund is buying 2 7/8% debt with maturities as far as 2025.  That is a…Continue

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Fix Social Security Now to add comments!

Comment by joetheeconomist on February 10, 2012 at 9:37pm

William, 1964?  It was broke in 1944.  Social Security has never been actuarily sound - not once in more than 70 years.  The man who ran the system 1944 said that taxes would need to be more than tripled.  Congress responded by raising benefits. 


Paying benefits is all that Social Secuirty has done - and ever will do.  It will go broke just paying benefits.  The problem that you may not see is that generations before you paid much less.  The maximum contribution in 1955 was $168.  Today is it closer to $16,000. 


To make it sound, you would need to add $17.9 in 2011 dollars.  That may be as much as the system has collected over its entire existance.

Comment by Marvin Wade on February 9, 2012 at 10:59pm

That makes no sense to me.  When SS collects an excess, the federal government absorbs it and the Trust Fund is increased.  But when SS has a shortfall, the taxpayer makes up the difference with no affect on the trust fund?  Social Security should last forever under those circumstances and the Trust Fund will continue to grow unabated..

Comment by William Eugene on February 9, 2012 at 6:21pm

Watch this film of Reagan stumping for Goldwater  and pay close attention to what he says about Social Security in 1964.  1. It is broke  2. It never was 'insurance' as claimed. the court said so. 3. The fund was NEVER intended for paying benefits. It was for 'Other" purposes, it says so in the act.  He says a lot of things that should resonant on current affairs.   Peace


Comment by joetheeconomist on February 9, 2012 at 5:24pm

Good question.  No.  The $105 billion is a subsidy no different than the subsidies given to GM or AIG.  It is a check from the taxpayers to Social Security to make it appear more solvent than it is.  There is no adjustment to what the government owes the Trust Fund.  That is a completely separate financial arrangement.

Comment by Marvin Wade on February 9, 2012 at 12:52pm

If the taxpayer paid Social Security $105 Billion in 2011 to make up for the payroll tax "holiday", is this not a simple payment against the $1.6 Trillion that SS has loaned the Federal Government  and will be reflected in the 2011 Trustee's Report as a negative $105 Billion collected and subtracted from the $1.6 Trillion as opposed to the positive $68 Billion that was added in 2010?

Comment by joetheeconomist on February 7, 2012 at 2:57pm

Here is the bad news - yes you do participate.  You just can't collect.  There are many subsidies running from you - the general taxpayer - to Social Security.  In 2011, you - the general taxpayer - paid Social Security $105 billion to make up for the payroll tax-'holiday'.  It wasn't a holiday it was a tax shift from you to future beneficiaries.  The EITC is another subsidy.


Our effort is taking shape.  Here is our FB page :





Comment by William Eugene on January 4, 2012 at 1:26pm

Joe, I will read your views and I do understand how ingrained this issue is.  The act from inception however, clearly displayed, what is was doing.   It states that the money collected is to pay benefits, AND OTHER PURPOSES.  That qualification exists in all "welfare programs".  I do not participate and there is many like myself that have refused and lived quite normal lives.  In my opinion the solution to Social Security is personal responsibility. Take care of your own family both older and younger generations. Since there is no authorization for public charity in the Constitution.

In fact, the birth certificate and SS are the primary causes of Identity theft according to the DHHS http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf


Comment by joetheeconomist on January 4, 2012 at 10:19am

William, I work with a grassroots effort to revive the discussion of Social Security reform.  Your comment doesn't rub me the wrong way.  I see it failrly regularly.  We have a view - and I hope it doesn't rub you the wrong way - that the crisis forming in Social Security grows whether Socail Security is constitutional or not. 


These are not my figures - they come from the Trustee's report.  The Trust Fund holds about 2.5 trillion in assets. The system as a whole has made about 20 trillion dollars of promises against that asset base.  DC says that future generations will make up the difference.  The problem is that taking in the money to pay today's benefits creates additional promises.  According to the Social Security Administrion, the system is short 17.9 trillion dollars.


I am more than happy to give you space to state your case.  Our view is :



I hope that you are seeing where Social Security reform is going.  It is progressively going to the general taxpayer.  It started with EITC.  Now it is the payroll tax-'holiday' or shift.  Most versions of Social Security reform today embed some form of public subsidy.  That makes the system bigger.  So the argument that it is not Constitutional is losing today.


Comment by William Eugene on January 4, 2012 at 12:07am

I don't want to rub anyone the wrong way with this, but here are the facts on Social Security.  There is no authorization for it, thus Congress is outside the Constitution. Now for the kicker.

Social Security  is 42 U.S.C Chapter 7 Social Security.  Section 1301 provides the general definitions for the Act.   (a) When used in this chapter (1) The term “State”, except where otherwise provided, includes the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,Guam,American Samoa,Virgin Islands,Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(2) The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense means, except where otherwise provided, the States.

Because Congress has no authority to enact this monster, the lawyers wrote it up in legalese.   Here the "word" "United States"  has been technically redefined as the areas stated in (a), and it does not 'include' the 50 states of the Union. Proof is contained on the same page of the act.

except where otherwise provided

(8)(C) The term “United States” means (but only for purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph) the fifty States and the District of Columbia.

IF the 50 states are part of (a) above, why  did Congress expressly include it here?  If we all 'know" it is part of the "United States", why did Congress need to include it in (8) which only applies to incentive err bribery payments for the states?    Answer.  Social Security is NOT mandatory for citizens of the Union.

IF you sign the agreement, you are now obligated to perform whatever the agreement demands of you.  Do you know what it demands of you?  Luckily, any contract or agreement entered into under fraud is not void, but voidable. I will leave it at that for you.  It is an "entitlement" with no authority in the law. 

By the way, those are the states that made 57 for Obama.  He campaigned in Puerto Rico the day after he said it and everyone laughed because they don't know what he and I know.  There IS 57 states.  50 making America, 7 making up the "United States" in statute being the federal states.

The Constitution makes you fully aware that the "United States" and "United States of America" are NOT the same place.   14th amendment clause 4:  "Neither the United States NOR any State.

IF the "United States" here used in the 50 states, what are the "states" ?

Or we can just go here. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html

(15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;
Comment by Marvin Wade on November 28, 2011 at 1:23pm

The thing that I would like would be a SS system that was strictly a Retirement program where payments were based on levels of contributions - like now, except there would be no bump ups for those collecting less than 50% of their spouses.  I have no problem with Survivors collecting 100% of he spouse's  amount, but nothing extra while the Spouse is alive.


Members (20)


Tea Party Nation is a social network

© 2016   Created by Judson Phillips.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service