PDA

View Full Version : NOW WE'RE TALKING !!!



bobroberts
01-23-2011, 01:33 PM
From Wyoming
Subject:Former Senator Alan Simpson Calls Seniors 'Greediest Generation'..


(This person is PISSED! There isn't a word that is false and I am believing that many Americans are beginning to think along these same lines......
From a man in Montana ....who - like the rest of us has just about had enough)

Hey Alan ,
Let's get a few things straight...
1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole for FIFTY YEARS...
2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63)...
3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social
Security into a Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff proud...
4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and your ilk pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age 67. NOW, you and your shill commission is proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN...
5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now you morons propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay the bills...
6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you incompetent bastards spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay of YOUR debt...


To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" on your incompetence. Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU...
1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?
2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?
3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?
4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and health care benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or, as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?
It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators who are "greedy". It is you and they who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes. That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic
political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.
And you can take that to the bank, you miserable son of a bitch.

Always say what you mean ! !
Always mean what you say ! !
NEVER COMPROMISE ..........

Soflasnapper
01-23-2011, 02:24 PM
3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social
Security into a Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff proud...

I agree with slamming Simpson and his sanctimonious call to balance the budget out of the hides of the less well off among us.

But I think the point I quote above is false. So far as I know, any surplus funds left over for SS after paying out its benefits due in a given years were always put in Treasury bonds at interest. Which is either the safest investment in the world, or worthless, because there is no dedicated fund of money available to pay off those bonds (depends on who you ask).

But there is nothing unique about the SS fund's Treasury bonds as to having no money around dedicated to pay them. ALL Treasury obligations lack a money trove just waiting to pay them off upon redemption-- the reliance is on the ability of the government to tax the populace.

It's just that now people have gained the notion that, although the Constitution was put together in part exactly to allow the federal government to tax the country, somehow now taxes are unConstitutional and a patriot's duty to oppose, violently if necessary.

It is true that LBJ decided to restate the budget balance or deficit to include the SS surplus in the 'unified' budget statement. But so far as I know, that accounting statement position didn't alter any underlying reality as to the SS fund. The federal government no more took that money after that time than before-- they always took it, and gave back the bonds bearing interest, both before this accounting change, and after.

pooltchr
01-23-2011, 03:04 PM
SS funds have been moved to the general fund.
In the private sector, it's called comingling...and is illegal.

Steve

Sev
01-23-2011, 03:08 PM
Actually you are a bit wrong about the constitution and taxation. The first income tax was instituted by by Lincoln in 1861 and expired in 1872. Until that point in time all taxes were incidental taxes.

In 1880 the supreme court ruled the excise and duty taxes could be used as form of income tax.
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/102/102.US.586.html

In 1894 congress passed an income tax that was declare unconstitutional.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/157/157.US.429.893.html

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/158/158.US.601.893.894.html

The 16th amendment was ratified in 1906.

As far as I am concerned it should be repeal.

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 02:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually you are a bit wrong about the constitution and taxation. The first income tax was instituted by by Lincoln in 1861 and expired in 1872. Until that point in time all taxes were incidental taxes.

In 1880 the supreme court ruled the excise and duty taxes could be used as form of income tax.
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/102/102.US.586.html

In 1894 congress passed an income tax that was declare unconstitutional.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/157/157.US.429.893.html

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/158/158.US.601.893.894.html

The 16th amendment was ratified in 1906.

As far as I am concerned it should be repeal. </div></div>

That is true but doesn't make me wrong.

The federal government was always set up to pay debt from its receipt of income from taxes and duties. The Constitution makes clear the new government assumed the debt of the old one. Obviously, it backed up its promise to pay such debts with the power to tax, if not the populace directly as to their income (and I didn't claim that), then excise taxes on business, duties on imported goods, etc., which were kinds of hidden taxes on the people and/or their economic activities.

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 02:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SS funds have been moved to the general fund.
In the private sector, it's called comingling...and is illegal.

Steve </div></div>

From Answers.com, which doesn't make it right as far as I've ever heard, but with which I agree:

When was Social Security put into the general fund?
In: History, Politics & Society, Retirement Planning, Social Security, US Government [Edit categories]
MetLifeŽ Official SiteMetLife.com
Make Your Retirement All About You. MetLifeŽ Can Help. Find Out How!
Ads
[Improve]
Not true. The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the "general operating fund."

During the Johnson administration, Social Security and other Federal programs that operate through trust funds were counted officially in the budget. This did not mean that it was actually part of the general fund, just counted as part of the budget.
However, this method of accounting for the Social Security Trust Fund in the federal budget was reversed in 1990.
Do your research next time.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_Social_Security_put_into_the_general_fund #ixzz1BwPjVykp

Sev
01-24-2011, 06:55 AM
My understanding is that while it may not go directly into the general fund it has been siphoned off in some manner and the government no longer has the means to cover that which has been promised.

With the Boomers retiring at 20,000 a day for the next 19 years it is going to become apparent very quickly.
That they have moved the goal post on retirement and are going to cut S.S. benefits and have been discussing doing this prior to the latest recession is proof that government does not have the means to support it.

Qtec
01-24-2011, 07:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">government does not have the means to support it.
</div></div>
The Govt does not support SS. The Govt pays its bills as it always has done. When you buy a bond you are basically lending the Govt money, with interest. It happens every day.

Why should you single out SS for non payment, even if it were possible?

Q

Sev
01-24-2011, 07:43 AM
The bonds are not worth the paper they are printed on.
The bubble or retirees will break the government as there are not enough people in the population to bring the pay in ratio back to what it was when FDR established it.
Nobody seems to have accounted for the continued drop off of the birth rate and thus the drop off of productive workers that would be needed for the collection of taxes to sustain that portion of promissory notes guaranteed by the government.

Stretch
01-24-2011, 07:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">government does not have the means to support it.
</div></div>
The Govt does not support SS. The Govt pays its bills as it always has done. When you buy a bond you are basically lending the Govt money, with interest. It happens every day.

Why should you single out SS for non payment, even if it were possible?

Q </div></div>

The whole system will be bankrupted simply because of how top heavy the population is with the boomers all beginning to draw out of it. There simply is not enough employed contibutors left to keep it solvent as it stands into the future unless it is drasticaly reworked. China is in even worse shape and their crunch time is just around the corner especialy due to their one child policy. To help soften the blow they are working on a law making it so that the adult children are financaily responsibe for their parents. It may very well come to that here to. Don't be too surprised to see more cases of parents sueing their kids for non-support. St.

Sev
01-24-2011, 08:10 AM
I see we have some agreement here.

As far as parents suing their children for non support that goes counter to American principles. It wont fly.

Families used to take care of there elderly as a matter of course. It was once part of the culture. You can thank the children of the sixties for helping change the landscape in how our elderly are taken care of.

However you cannot force people to financially support family members you are personally independent of. If you do you are setting the stage for another form of indentured servitude.

Stretch
01-24-2011, 09:02 AM
Raising kids is a hugely expensive buisness. If that's where your income went it's hard, moraly, to say that parents don't have a right to support. Where moral and sociatal pressures aren't enough to force family responsibility it may be neccesary and proper for the courts to intervene. Something will have to be done in the near future that's for sure. This is just one of many proposals that's been flying around lately. Seniors living in abject poverty while their kids are off making a good living and all but abandoning them is a very sad and disturbing sight. All too common....St.

Sev
01-24-2011, 09:28 AM
It is sad and disturbing.
However this comes with the fall of the nuclear family, family values and a strong moral compass.

However you can not force free and independent individuals though court intervention to care for family members. Its not how it works.

Qtec
01-24-2011, 09:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The bonds are not worth the paper they are printed on. </div></div>

The rest of the world seems to think so.

Q

Sev
01-24-2011, 09:35 PM
More fool them.
One more economic tremor is all it will take to tumble the house of cards.
Watch what happens when gas hits 5.00 a gallon.

Stretch
01-25-2011, 02:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More fool them.
One more economic tremor is all it will take to tumble the house of cards.
Watch what happens when gas hits 5.00 a gallon. </div></div>

The horse might make a comeback. St.

LWW
01-25-2011, 05:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My understanding is that while it may not go directly into the general fund it has been siphoned off in some manner and the government no longer has the means to cover that which has been promised. </div></div>

What the Clintonista said was that they had a "BALANCE OF PAYMENTS" and the moonbat crazy left heard balanced budget.

Here's what happens in an apt analogy.

A guy has $1,000.00 in bills due this month ... but only $801.00.

Next step, he goes out for a payday loan of $200.00.

This new borrowing gives him a balance of payments for the month ... and in fact a surplus of $1.00.

Has he actually "balanced his budget" or has he merely dug the hole a little deeper by prolonging judgement day?

According to the moonbat crazy left he balanced his budget ... according to logic he has made the situation worse because at some point in the future he will have to repay the borrowed money with interest.

LWW