Why was it was necessary for clinton to divert 2.2 trillion dollars FROM the social security trust fund?
492138
Sadly, you are trying to pretend that this happened only during Clinton's years, so unfortunately if I agree with you in part I fear I am going to hurt your feelings again. This is not intended to be a slander against you, because you are right in what you say, you just don't go far enough.\n\nYou are right, every President's budget since 1982 has skimmed money out of the Social Security Trust Fund to hide how much the deficit is. This past year, the federal government diverted over 400 billion (I forgot who the President is now, apparently you did too). Regardless of who was in office during these last 25 years (8 years dems and 17 years reps) it has been shameless and criminal. And yes, you are right, this is the REAL problem with Social Security; if it had been left alone from the beginning, there would still be enough of a build-up for many years of Baby Boomer retirements until the population stabilizes again. Technically the Trust Fund is full, but in actuality it is full of inter-governmental bonds (the treasury borrows from SS and gives an IOU).\n\nWe should all be ashamed that we have allowed this to go on for so long, even though the government has done such a good job trying to make certain we didn't notice it.
87270
keep social security money out of the general funds, replace all money taken out of s.s. used for other things not related to s.s., and thats it.
460684
None for me, it goes to the American government, who takes way more than they need, if Bush hadn't grown the national debt AND FAILED to make the proper tax reform! between that and the tax CUTS for the RICH!! ... it's just bs, I won't go off on it here.\n-Duo
1160948
The budget takes years to develop.  It started way before Bush was President, and yes Bush did add to it but it was already in a crises when Clinton was President.  As for asking a silly question as that maybe you should have been giving Clinton the BJ since you are so infatuated with it instead with the real facts.
985433
You really are joking, aren't you? Leftover Campaign Funds. This mid-term election saw record funds wasted across the board. I doubt there was any left. In fact, I'd wager money was skimmed from taxes for this campaign.
143087
The government has already made it clear that the burden of responsibility for your financial future is on you. This started back with the creation of the 401k and other defined contribution plans.\n\nAmericans need to wake up! We have a pitiful savings rate as a country. It just turned Negative!! Social Security should be privatized and saved, but no-one should make the mistake of thinking that their social security retirement benefits will be enough.
474044
There is currently a YEARLY surplus of Social Security  withholding that is being generated by boomers being at their highest lifetime earning levels, and a not-yet increased demand for Social security payments.  It is decreasing fast.\nThis surplus is 'borrowed' into the general budget of the United States.\nIn order to pay Social security back, taxes would have to be increased, because...we just borrowed that money from ourselves.\n\nIf people stop contributing into Social security and start putting money into Individual Investment accounts, the Social Security payments will not have enough SS withholding to pay them - in other words, the people who paid into Social Security all their lives would face a insolvent fund.\n\nOnce you put your money into a Social Security personal investment (with a contracted outside investment company) your investment has the same pitfalls that private investing has.  It can suddenly lose half it's value during a market correction, it can be lost entirely should the country go through one of the downturns that usually happen about every 50 years...\n\nPanics, recessions and Depression are cyclical economic downturns that have roiled this country on a regular basis since it's birth.  They are characterized by bank failures, bankruptcies, foreclosures, business failures, and declines in property values.  Before the very recent creation of Social security, the term for retirement during an economic downturn was PAUPER.
764763
No, it will be pushed aside so the Democrats can use it as a campaign ad in the presidential election. Computers can be traced as you know. How can he be paying taxes if he has no SSI number?
1181947
Because people have moved on?\nOr because billionaire George Soros has a new place to spend his money - perhaps he's directly buying Senator Clinton, instead of going through loopy intermediaries.\n\nFor the party of the 'little guy' they sure have a lot of millionaires and rich people running their party and calling the tunes.
121220
No, alot of older conservitives don't want social security messed with, It really is a bad idea to invest in a stock market with its ups and downs. There must be an answer between that and the way it is going.
1021583
Large amounts are taken out of your paycheck for social security because that is where the Senate and House get their retirement from. Their pay stays the same on retirement and they will get more in one month than you get all year.
456677
He was trying to give the individual control over his/her account to make sure you would get what you actually put in to it. Of course, this pissed off the demoncrats because if he did that, they could not get it and give it away for votes anymore. Bush also felt like a person being able to control their money and invest in the stock market would be able to increase their retirement account.\n\nHe has given up on it because of liberals and the news media bombarding him at every turn and calling him evil for wanting to give each of us control over our own money. We truly live in a strange country where you are considered evil for not wanting to give all your money away and for wanting to have a decent retirement. You are also considered evil for opposing some immoral lifestyles too even if they go against everything you believe.\n\nYou see, free speech is only free for liberals. if you are conservative or a Christian, you have no free speech anymore and liberals will shout you down every time you bring up a point. They actually do not have an argument so they have to just be loud to drown you out. Typical liberal tactic because theirs is a fact less society that runs on fear.
93317
Ahh to have the Urban legend of Bill Clinton, how nice it must have been to live in a world of surplus money that he was supposed to have.  There has never been surplus money in this country.  The National Debt grew to over $5 trillion under his leadership.  It past a trillion dollars for the first time in our Nations History under Reagan and some almost 20 years later when Bill Clinton left office we had a debt of $5,650,000,000.00 or about double what it was when he took office.  And it will double again under Bush, and again under the next president unless we start doing something about it.  I have heard so much about all the surpluses under Clinton, but I have done my homework and there never were any.  You see the American People believe that by reducing the deficit we are reducing the debt.  The answer to that is NO! When we reduce the deficit we reduce the amount our debt grows for that year and that is all we are still spending more money than we are taking in.  John Kerry also believed that Clinton left surpluses of money in fact the amount he quoted during the 2004 campaign was the amount of actual debt that was left at the end of the Clinton administration,(Kerry quoted a $5.65 Trillion surplus at the end of the Clinton Presidency, we were in Debt that amount, maybe that is why he lost).  The only time in the history of our country that there was no National Debt was under Andrew Jackson(1833-41), the last time we had brought in more than we spent and brought it down was over 50 years ago Under President Harry S. Truman who will be my choice for the greatest American President, not only did he have that one year,(and it was the only year since Jackson was President), but he stands alone in History as having been the only man to order the use of Nuclear Weapons against another country in the time of war.  And that distinction goes for all mankind, no one else has ever ordered these weapons to be used against another and let us pray he remains the last as well.
987929
That money was used to help people get back on their feet.  Not to be used for vacations, wines, sex change operations.  That money could of been better used for people who really needed it.  About 25% of the money was handed out to people who didn't need it.  That is plain out stealing!  Shame on thoes people!
885339
Because the government funds enough private citizens (welfare) without needing to spend more.  There is no money to spend anymore...it doesn't grow on some tree behind The White House last time I checked, so as taxpayers, do I want to pay?  Heck no!!!!
258868
A Federally funded "government entitlement", as I'm expecting your question is in reference to, is a benefit paid for by the U.S. taxpayer to assist those in need of opportunity.  That's a laymen's definition.  \n\nSocial Security is a forced entitlement, created by FDR.  It was meant to create revenue for the Government at the time of its inception. Citizens are forced to pay into SS and that money generated by the Federal Government is invested and draws interest.  It is funnelled to various accounts and is part of the Federal Budget.  Check the accounting principles that regulate it.  You will find that SS monies are used to pay for SS, as well as other government subsidies and entitlements, such as WELFARE, FARMER SUBSIDIES, ETC.\n\nQuite frankly, I'd rather have that money that I've been forced to pay the imperial federal government.  I'd invest it and I'd earn MORE MONEY that what SS is yielding.  This is a policy that President BUSH wanted to happen.  Afterall, ALL FEDERAL employees have this as a program. So, why can't we?  Answer:  Democratic leadership, led by Ted Kennedy, argue that SS is needed.  Why?  see my point above about how it's used.  These people use scare tactics to convince people that SS is a Security Blanket, because they're too foolish with their money.  Let GOVERNMENT handle your own financial portfolio.  Not ME.  I can earn MORE MONEY without the GOVERNMENT telling me what to do.  \n\nYou can too.  \n\nAsk your SENATOR or your REPRESENTATIVE about whether or not they are part of the PRIVATE investment program that FEDERAL employees have that we don't have (we have SS-- yippee).
850533
The long and the short of it is that government cut spending and balanced the budget under the Clinton administration, then STARTED collected more taxes than were being spent by the time Bush took office. This amounted to a PROJECTED surplus, not a real one "yet."\n\nBush continued and worked on cutting domestic spending (where Clinton cut spending in military) and pushed through tax cuts to stimulate the economy that was floundering when he took office, and then, of course the war on terror broke out. Though 'fixing social security' and rebuilding the military was part of his platform, (he really needed to rebuild it quickly now). Any of the PROJECTED surplus was spent away and the budget hasn't been balanced since (go figure) and no additional debt reduction was ever pursued.\n\nSo, the surplus you hear about never really came into being and the national debt has been steadily going up for over 50 years without any sign of being reduced. \n\nSo, since most of the government's IOU's are in the budget columns of social security, you had better invest into a 401k! Hope that makes sense....