"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
> Item 2 is not true. They did include the SS revenue when
> declaring a surplus.

The SS Surplus is government revenue. Hence the surplus.


"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
> As for "1" while technically true, the
> money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a
> bookkeeping fiction.

It represents a long term liability... yes. Yet under Clinton, the
publicly held debt declined over his last three years in office. And in the
middle year, without the SS Surplus, total liabilities increased by only 14
billion.

Meanwhile Under Bush, not only is the SS Surplus treated the same way, but
Bush now deficit spends $450 billion a year. A figure that will continue
unchanged because of Bush's economic policy for the next decade.

So long suckers....