I think both the Dems and Reps are idiots!

Jmax · Apr 9, 2013

I just don't get it, just don't get it. They talk about social security and call it an entitlement. I am 55 years old and have been paying into it since I was 16. If I had been doing the same thing with an IRA I would easily have over a couple million, maybe more. But yet they are giving my money I paid in to people coming across the border who have never paid in a dime. They are spending my money to pay for others and give other benefits to other people. That sound familiar? It should, it is also known as a ponzi scheme. You take money from some people who invest in the program and use it to pay off others who are already on the program. You will run out of money as more people come on and you pay out more. A lot of people have gone to jail for that same crime. If it was anyone but our own government we could sue them and take them to court. For some reason since it is the government it is legal? emoBang Now they are talking about changing the program and kicking back benefits for people who have paid in for years. I just don't get it.

Then also look at the so called Obama insurance program. Costs sky rocketing from first estimates. They want another 600 billion in tax increases now and will supposedly cut a trillion, some two for one in "future" spending? emoRolleyes Another ponzi scheme, pay me now and I will save you money later. You notice while these same government officials are cutting everyone else, cutting jobs, cutting defense, cutting entitlements and forcing insurance on people and companies that they themselves voted in pay increases for themselves and are exempt from having to use the same programs they have forced onto everyone else. They even have a huge entitlement benefit program that they get after only a short time in office. emoHoppingmad I think if these same politicians would be subject to the same benefits they are dishing out to everyone else you would see a much better and more reasonable distribution of our money being used by our government. A lot less money that we paid in going to others who have paid in very little or in some cases nothing.

Then lastly, what about our older people. You realize they now are talking about cutting social security and medicare to the elders. If they do not keep up with the cost of living increases many elderly people are going to be having to live with family and may even be on the streets. Not to mention if they kick back benefits more elders will be forced to stay in the work place and less jobs for the young will be available. There are a lot of seniors who for one can't find a job and others who due to failing health could not work a job if they had one. emoAngry

I will say this, if you have not started a 401k or IRA for yourself and your spouse you had better start. You are going to need it. They say that on average with people over fifty that only about 35% have put back more then $200,000.00 for retirement. That may sound like a nice sum but with rising costs and the falling value of the dollar that will not go far. emoDoh

Sorry to get on a rant again this morning but putting it in print helps me to cool off. I stay pissed off most of the time when I see what our elected officials in both parties seem to be doing to us and then at the same time lining their own pockets. emoMad Jmax

Sniperchoke · Apr 9, 2013

Here is you a good read about what really happened. I think you figured it out though.

Duped by Congressional Lies

Some of the responses to my column last week, titled “Immoral Beyond Redemption,” prove that Americans have been hoodwinked by Congress. Some readers protested my counting Social Security among government handout programs that can be described as Congress' taking what belongs to one American and giving to another, to whom it doesn’t belong -- legalized theft. They argued that they worked for 45 years and paid into Social Security and that the money they now receive is theirs. These people have been duped and shouldn’t be held totally accountable for such a belief. Let’s look at it.

The Social Security pamphlet of 1936 read, "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right." (http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssb36.html). Americans were led to believe that Social Security was like a retirement account and that money placed in it was, in fact, their property. Shortly after the Social Security Act’s passage, it was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, in Helvering v. Davis (1937). The court held that Social Security was not an insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way." In a 1960 case, Flemming v. Nestor, the Supreme Court said, "To engraft upon Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands."

Decades after Americans were duped into thinking that the money taken from them was theirs, the Social Security Administration belatedly and quietly tried to clean up its history of deception. Its website (http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html) explains, "Entitlement to Social Security benefits is not (a) contractual right." It adds: "There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. ... Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law." The Social Security Administration’s explanation fails to mention that it was the SSA itself that created the lie that "the checks will come to you as a right."

Here’s my question to those who protest that their Social Security checks are not handouts: Seeing as Congress has not “set up a Social Security account for you” containing your 45 years' worth of Social Security contributions, where does the money you receive come from? I promise you it is not Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. The only way Congress can give one American a dollar is to first take it from some other American. Congress takes the earnings of a person who’s currently in the workforce to give to a Social Security recipient. The sad fact of business is that Social Security recipients want their monthly check and couldn't care less about who has to pay. That’s a vision shared by thieves who want something; the heck with who has to pay for it.

Then there’s the fairness issue that we’re so enamored with today. It turns out that half the federal budget is spent on programs primarily serving senior citizens, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But let’s look at a few comparisons between younger Americans and older Americans. More than 80 percent of those older than 65 are homeowners, and 66 percent of them have no mortgage. Homeownership is at 40 percent for those younger than 35, and only 12 percent own their home free and clear of a mortgage. The average net worth of people older than 65 is about $230,000, whereas that of those younger than 35 is $10,000. There’s nothing complicated about this; older people have been around longer. But what standard of fairness justifies taxing the earnings of workers who are less wealthy in order to pass them on to retirees who are far wealthier? There’s no justification, but there’s an explanation. Those older than 65 vote in greater numbers and have the ear of congressmen.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

Sniperchoke · Apr 9, 2013

Here is something else about Social Security to tic you off !

Another big congressional lie is Social Security. Here's what a 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: "After the first 3 years -- that is to say, beginning in 1940 -- you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year ... beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year." Here's Congress's lying promise: "That is the most you will ever pay." Let's repeat that last sentence: "That is the most you will ever pay." Compare that to today's reality, including Medicare, which is 7.65 cents on each dollar that you earn up to nearly $107,000, which comes to $8,185.

The Social Security pamphlet closes with another lie: "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you ... The checks will come to you as a right." First, there's no Social Security account containing your money, but more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to Social Security payments.

We can thank public education for American gullibility.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Jmax · Apr 9, 2013

Yep, both those articles just help support that the whole thing is a big scam set up to hide a tax that we all pay thinking that one day we will get it back in payments when we are older and have no means to support ourselves. Just proves what I have always thought, the SSA is just another group or office set up to take your money and spend it as they see fit to advance their own wishes. emoHoppingmad Jmax

Liveliner · Apr 9, 2013

It seem that you guys are not understanding Why Social Security was set up in the first place... It was not because the Government thought the Citizens were total idiots and not having the forethought to save for their future. Oh ... I guess they did think that .. But that was not the reason for the Government wanting our money in their possession. Allow me to go find it so you folks will not thing I am making this scheit up... To be continued ...

Liveliner · Apr 9, 2013

Well I have read and read and read,, There were basically two ways that the Government could have considered to put aside money for those who who were being forced out of the Workforce to make way for Younger workers trying to enter into the Workforce. There was a thing known as Old Age Pension and a thing called Old Age Insurance. A Pension is your money in your account ... Take for example a Railroad Pension. Then The Old Age Insurance was set up with built in limitations so as an Insured, it was highly unlikely you or most people would ever actually qualify to have the Insurance pay off. Very much unlike a pension. If you will research the Life expectancy for the majority of men in the 1930's was less than 65 years old.
As Modern Insurances go you pay and continue to pay in the event you should qualify for a claim. With Insurance, If you should Die before a claim and there are no qualified dependents the Insurance company has a Huge windfall in their favor.. That profit edge was very well thought out and Planned.

Liveliner · Apr 9, 2013

<div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>

Continued >>> More about this to come and How the Federal gets involved...

It will be useful to unpack this language a bit. The passage asserts three propositions:

<li style="box-sizing: border-box">The RET will encourage older workers to leave the work force;<li style="box-sizing: border-box">The absence of the RET would encourage older workers to stay in the work force;<li style="box-sizing: border-box">Theprimarypurpose of the RET is the social insurance principle of replacement of lost income.

We have already shown that proposition 1) is false, and we are discussing proposition 3) at some length. Let us consider, in passing, proposition 2).This above is showing a problemoccurringfor the insurance company that goes against the original intentions claim...More people are living longer and reaching the age whereas to qualify toreceivetheir Benefits. Now , to further turn a screw in this Ponzi Scheme. As you Know with a Normal Insurance plan youinvestinto a setamountmaximum should you qualify for aclaim.. However with the Old Age Insurance. You are required to start paying into your plan as soon as you enter the Workforce with the Understanding that you will not beeligiblefor claim Benefits until such time that you reach an old. And then on top of that you are onlylegiblefor anamountbased on the amount you have paid into the system.I hear people all the time saying "Where's My Money?" "They are Holding My money so they can not be going broke." .. Where is all the Money they have collected that they never had to Pay back?" "Whoa" This is not an IRA. It Is NOT A PENSION PLAN either It is NOT YOUR MONEY. You basically have been paying your InsurancePremiums. To an organization who has been given Government approval to use their money in anymannerthey see fitting to suit their needs. With the facts that more people are expecting the money they have invested back to them, the Insurance is seeing less and less profits. When you hear how Social Security is going broke, It seems impossible. Since They have only paid back to the citizens who have contributed and have kept all the money never claimed By the Public, that Money should be there. Well that is not the WAY A PONZIschemeworks. WHEN THERE IS NO PROFIT AT THE TOP ITCOLLAPSES...

Liveliner · Apr 9, 2013

Ever wonder Why this was such a great Idea for the United States Government back right after the Great Depression and the fact the United States went officially bankrupt? Do you have a clue why the Federal Reserve was set up and how it was to be funded. The huge profit margins in the early days went directly to the Federal Reserve to assist in the recovery of the Financial base of our nation. The Federal Reserve is no more a Part of our Federal Government than is Federal Express. It is Basically a Private company contracted to control the currency. They WERE required to follow strict Guidelines in maintaining a currency value know as the Gold Standard. When the Gold Standard was no longer a requirement all the Valuable for their worth in silver and gold was replaced with Federal Reserve (Private Company) Notes or basically IOU's. The Market was flooded with currency drastically devastating the value of the American Dollar. This was brought up to show how the federal Reserve has crippled Social security recipients. The individual's small claim amount was paid in when the Dollars had a much greater value. The Dollars Paid back now is a mere fraction of the value of the dollar invested.. What really sucks is that all those premiums you have invested did not profit you a single dime in interest. It is Not your Money.

Is it a real Mystery to you as to why our Senators and Congressmen do not invest in Social Security.. Why should they when they will continue to be paid a set salary after leaving office for the rest of their lives.

spnplgr · Apr 10, 2013

It's the holy grail of socialism folks! Begining with Theo. Rooservelt, the socialists have been steadily advancing their redistribution programs until a breaking point is imminent. They include illegal immigrants in the redistribution plans becasue they believe it will guarantee a Democrat voting majority for the foreseeable future. The late Margaret Thatcher said socialism works very well until you run out of other peoples' money. With the socialists, it is all about taking from the hard working productive members of society and giving it to the lazy slacker because they believe everyone deserves the same standard of living - at all costs. When you ask one of them why socialism has never worked in the history of mankind, they always say it is because it has never been done right. Hell, Mao could not make it work and he killed 200,00 of his own people in a valiant effort to get it done. Still, he failed. Today, it is an accurate statement to say China is more capitalist than the U.S. That's how and why they are gaining on us economically.

In Cyprus recently, they seized money from private bank accounts. In this country, they are very close to taking over all pension plans, IRA's, 401K plans, etc, etc. On two occasions, individuals who can best be described as socialists, have made proposals to congress on how to accomplish this. They recommend that these private savings plans be taken over by the government and administered by the Social Security Administration. One proposal suggested that 20% of these funds be invested in U.S. bonds and the balance be invested "somewhere else." Additionally, they said that the remaining 80% of the money would earn a guarnteed 3% annually. They said this would protect the savings plan member from losing money in the stock market. Now get this. The government would get instant access to 20% of approximatley 10 trillion dollars. What kind of spending srpee would they go on then?

Do not think our politicians are above this - they are not. When Bernanke's money printing strategy fails, and it will, things will get bad enough for the grab to take place. It will happen. I hope you have moved your money out of their way.

On obomma care, my neighbor told me that his doctor informed him he will no longer be eligible for several lab tests including the PSA test when he reaches 75 years of age. I also saw a guy on TV complaining that his Medicare payment for part B?? is going from $97 this year to over $200 next year. Hang on boys, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Jmax · Apr 11, 2013

Reading this kind of information only makes me think and feel we are in more trouble then I thought. So for years we have been brain washed into thinking that one day we would be able to draw SS payments by paying in, they set a precedence by paying all those before us but now we are told to read the fine print. In short we are screwed, I will say it again, Ponzi Scheme. emoBang

I am getting to where I don't trust about 75% of what we are being told by the very ones who claim to represent us. It is no more insane as the Obama budget they just came out with. Increased tax now with the promise I will cut my increase in spending that I plan to spend in the future. HUH! What the h@*! Since when did cutting the future increase in spending become a spending cut today? It is still an increase!!!! In short that is cutting nothing. I have to admit, Obama is a master at spreading words to make it appear that he is giving something up. emoCrazy

Look at it like your own expense. If you are overspending, you have to cut your spending in order to stay within what you are making. Your solution, let's keep spending all we are spending now, even spend more and to bring it in line you cut your projected increase in spending for the future.???? Yea, right, that will work, and I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. emoGoofy

Let's look at it like this,

Current debt: 16+T + projected Obama increase - Obama cuts in future spending = 20+T in debt. Since when was that a cut in spending.

Obama's come back, "Ah yes, but if I had not cut it we would be in debt by over 21 Trillion so it is cutting spending." emoCrazy Jmax

outcaster · Apr 11, 2013

A few facts for ya: Before Social Security and Medicare, 35% of "Senior" Americans lived below the poverty line. Now that number is 7 to 10 %. More than half had no health insurance of any kind, now all have insurance coverage. As for the "National Dept". While high, the Federal Gov't currently operates at 109% of income. The average American family operates at more than 200% of income as do most business'.

Sniperchoke · Apr 11, 2013

Bottom line social security was inacted to steal more money (taxes) from working Americans. It was a lie from the beginning and now has developed into a monstrosity that is bankrupting the youth of our country.

Dropshot · Apr 11, 2013

I think our current crop of thieves shows a real purpose to congressional term limits...

I think both the Dems and Reps are idiots!

Help Support Chattanooga Fishing Forum:

Jmax

Well-known member

Sniperchoke

Well-known member

Sniperchoke

Well-known member

Jmax

Well-known member

Liveliner

Well-known member

Liveliner

Well-known member

Liveliner

Well-known member

Liveliner

Well-known member

spnplgr

Well-known member

Jmax

Well-known member

outcaster

Well-known member

Sniperchoke

Well-known member

Dropshot

Well-known member

Similar threads

Latest posts