Forbes' Merrill Matthews argues that the multi-trillion dollar social security trust fund was looted years ago:
Either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now [in saying that social security checks won't go out if the debt ceiling isn't raised], or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.
Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.
***Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?
The federal government has borrowed all of [social security] trust fund money and spent it ... And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.
[T]he president is telling the truth now in the sense that he is conceding there’s no money in the trust fund to pay benefits; but he and other Social Security status-quo defenders have been deceiving the public for decades.
Indeed, as the following excerpt from the 1998 Senate Budget Committee session shows, Senator Hollings alleged that the government had already been "borrowing" from the social security fund:
U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD CHAIRMAN ALAN GREENSPAN: .....making sure that surplus is there.
U.S. SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS (D-SC): Yeah, making sure that surplus is there. I'm telling you, Dr. Greenspan, that's music to my ears.
GREENSPAN: Well, I remember you taking this song a long way over recent years, and I must say, Senator, a number of us were skeptical that was even discussable, figuring we would never get to unified surplus that we said which you were preaching was very interesting, scientifically sound, but unrealistic. I apologize.
HOLLINGS: Well that's all right, because your Greenspan Commission report in section 21 says just exactly what you're saying here. That was in 1983; here now, in 1999, on page two, "simply put, enough resources must be set aside over a lifetime of work to fund retirement consumption." Now that section 21 said set it aside. President Bush, in section 13 3 01 on November the 5th, 1990 signed that into law. And we making headway. Let's understand, though, that we're still running deficits. 'Cause I'm not going along with this monkeyshine about unified. 'Cause unified is not net, the debt still goes up, is that correct?
GREENSPAN: If you're...it depends on whether or not you wish to create the savings...
HOLLINGS: I'm not asking what you're trying to create. The simple fact is the debt has been going up at least $100 billion for the last several years.
GREENSPAN: Outside, on budget, that is correct.
HOLLINGS: That's right, on budget, you're spending a hundred billion more than you're taking in.
HOLLINGS: And this president's budget spends another hundred billion more than we take in.
GREENSPAN: I haven't seen it yet.
HOLLINGS: You haven't seen it? You're testifying about it now.
GREENSPAN: I haven't seen the budget. You haven't seen it either.
HOLLINGS: Well, you know his plan. Look you think he's going to spend less than a hundred billion more?
GREENSPAN: I will wait to see what the numbers look like.
HOLLINGS: Well, the truth is...ah, shoot, well, we all know there's Washington's math problem. Alan Sloan in this past week's Newsweek says he spends 150%. What we've been doing, Mr. Chairman, in all reality, is taken a hundred billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund, transferring it over to the spending column, and spending it. Our friends to the left here are getting their tax cuts, we getting our spending increases, and hollering surplus, surplus, and balanced budget, and balanced budget plans when we continue to spend a hundred billion more than we take in.
That's the reality, and I think that you and I, working the same side of the street now, can have a little bit of success by bringing to everybody's attention this is all intended surplus. In other words, when we passed the Greenspan Commission Report, the Greenspan Commission Report only had Social Security in 1983 a two hundred million surplus. It's projected to have this year a 117 million surplus. I've got the schedule, I'll ask to put in the record the CBO report: 117, 126, 130, 100, going right through to 2008 over the ten year period of 186 billion surplus. That was intended; this is dramatic about all these retirees, the baby boomers. But we foresaw that baby boomer problem, we planned against that baby boomer problem. Our problem is we've been spending that particular reserve, that set-aside that you testify to that is so necessary. That's what I'm trying to get this government back to reality, if we can do that.
We owe Social Security 736 billion right this minute. If we saved 117 billion, we could pay that debt down, and have the wonderful effect on the capital markets and savings rate. Isn't that correct? Thank you very much, Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And on September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said:
According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions....
...While France and Germany were urging Greece to cut its spending on social services and public sector employees (who account for 25% of the workforce), they were bullying Greece behind the scenes to confirm billions of euros in arms deals from France and Germany, including submarines, a fleet of warships, helicopters and war planes. One Euro-MP alleged that Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy blackmailed the Greek Prime Minister by making the Franco-German contributions to the bailout dependent upon the arms deals going through, which was signed by the previous Greek Prime Minister. Sarkozy apparently told the Greek Prime Minister Papandreou, “We’re going to raise the money to help you, but you are going to have to continue to pay the arms contracts that we have with you.” The arms deals run into the billions, with 2.5 billion euros simply for French frigates. Greece is in fact the largest purchaser of arms (as a percentage of GDP) in the European Union, and was planning to make more purchases:
Greece has said it needs 40 fighter jets, and both Germany and France are vying for the contract: Germany wants Greece to buy Eurofighter planes — made by a consortium of German, Italian, Spanish and British companies — while France is eager to sell Athens its Rafale fighter aircraft, produced by Dassault. Germany is Greece's largest supplier of arms, according to a report published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in March, with Athens receiving 35 percent of the weapons it bought last year from there. Germany sent 13 percent of its arms exports to Greece, making Greece the second largest recipient behind Turkey, SIPRI said.
Thus, France and Germany insist upon French and German arms manufacturers making money at the expense of the standard of living of the Greek people. Financially extorting Greece to purchase weapons and military equipment while demanding the country make spending cuts in all other areas (while increasing the taxes on the population) reveals the true hypocrisy of the whole endeavor, and the nature of who is really being ‘bailed out.’
So, for instance, the deeply-interconnected Murdockalypse cannot be "swept under the rug" (someone said) or 'compartmentalized,' nor 'cut its losses.' The entire reaches of it could crash and no one can cushion the fall.
And when it crashes, the chain reaction from it might create the "television blackout" (someone said), the mass-media dummies all go speechless when the Master Ventriloquist keels over. (Murdockalypse.) FOX & mimics goes off the air and Limbaugh & copy-hate radio goes off the air and then ... all the other channels would need reporters and would have to get their own News stories. And that sort of 'upset to the bankster Master plan' and loss of News control when all reporters scatter-beans-scatter and each one 'makes' News independently, that is a breakdown of TPTB plans. Without Murdoch/FOX/Limbaugh and the 'real time' synchronizing affect which broadcasting orchestrates, then nobody knows what to think (or how to, for themselves) and the (clock)beat is missing which drives the 'lockstep.'
Murdockalypse seems to me to be one more instance in a series of foul-ups and fumbles and breakdowns in the scheduled destruction by TPTB of humankind. Which is good news, or hopeful ideas, (for humankind) that the rulers of the world have lost, and are losing, their control.
The power over all is money. And today's world-wreckers are the banksters, (Zionazis, Rothschilds, etc) as described here a lot by everyone. Local and personal independence (and maybe survival) is by boycotting and shunning 'their' currency, don't circulate it -- don't accept it as wages and don't use it to pay costs of living. Instead, local areas and regions can start a local currency and 'economy' and so detach themselves from the matrix of money control.
The bad news is the difficulty in spontaneously generating and starting the circulation of a 'local currency' (and one model does not suit all localities, 'currency' is different from place to place on a case-by-case economic basis).
The good news is there is a way out, steps an individual or locality can take so (small)we are not powerless or helpless. So: it's hard work, but it does work.
[Related to, or symptom of, the old powerbase's loss of control -- really old, like for 300 yrs they have been 'working it' -- is seen in developments such as, first, that they realize they are losing their grip and, growing in desperation, resort to the (Sunstein) 'cognitive infiltration' thing telling people what to think, and second, the content of what it is they tell everyone. Usually we (targets) can detect the lying denying something exists, whereas we know it does exist or did happen. What is harder to spot, and think about, (and my point in this digression), is when they lie affirming something is, but in truth it is not. Denial is relatively easy to detect; exaggeration is harder to scrutinize. My example is the HAARP array causing earthquakes at the time and place they choose -- it might touch off quakes or volcano eruptions all right, but they do not have the accuracy or totality they would like you to think they do; that is, tell you to think so and thereby feel paralyzed. Further example: They do not have as much control of Obama, and Obama does not have as much control of 'events' staging, (and controlling News), as they would like you to think and be fearful they do. A third type of loss-of-control: Their hi-tech and computer-stuff breaks too, same as yours and mine does. They can't stop (unscheduled) breakdowns, and the more complex the 'matrix' of their controls, the more breakdowns that occur in the complexity. Anyway, the point being, 'global chessboard geo-strategic checkmate' is NOT a done deal -- same as the USA women's soccer World Cup win was NOT pre-destined and inevitable, no matter how much rah-rah fervid certainty the mass-media made it sound as though it would be, absolutely foregone conclusive certainty -- and one reasonable assessment of recent events is to say it shows 'they' are losing control and missing their prescheduled timeline objectives and goals.]
Money is everywhere and barely anyone understands where it comes from and what it is. Speaking for myself, I kind of thought I knew about it, (although never really thinking about it), and I do understand the math of (invented) financial 'instruments' BUT, I realized that 'money' was one of my personal unknown Unknowns when I read this book. Many people might do themselves a favor and read this book. I did and now money is one of my known Knowns...
2) It turns out taxes are to pay the interest (on debt). When money is circulated without interest then there are no taxes. Interest (on debt) is ALL that taxes pay for, and ALL taxes go to the same purpose: to pay interest payments.
Debt is money. Taxes only pay interest (on debt).
Those are the two salient points in Ellen Hodgson Brown's book The Web of Debt. I am not going to reconstruct the explanation here, just read the book.
It explains who the global bankster Control Cabal is, and names some names, and explains their mechanisms of control. (Pretty much the same conclusion(s) as this group has reached, i.e. Rothschilds, Zionazis, Fed. Reserve et al., and their minions in Office or in Authority.) And the book explains what an individual person or local group can do, concrete steps to take control and overthrow global banksters. (In comparison, effective means of defeating TPTB is spelled out not so much in this group.)
Author Brown makes great effort and succeeds at avoiding making it all a partisan political (power) matter in her explanation of money. Of course, politics hangs all over money, but she shows (across centuries) money is only money, a thing unto itself, and what that 'thing' is is debt. period.