PDA

View Full Version : Social Security quiz.



LWW
05-15-2012, 04:32 AM
Question #1:

Which party promised that SS would forever be voluntary, and then reneged:

A - Democrats.

B - Republicans.

C - Whigs.

LWW
05-15-2012, 04:41 AM
Question #2:

Which party promised that SS payments would be placed into individual accounts, and then reneged by putting it into the general fund and being spent:

A - Democrats.

B - Republicans.

C - Libertarians.

LWW
05-15-2012, 04:42 AM
Question #3:

Which party promised that SS payments would be tax deductible, and then reneged:

A - Democrats.

B - Republicans.

C - Nazis.

LWW
05-15-2012, 04:44 AM
Question #4:

Which party promised that SS payments would be tax exempt, and then reneged:

A - Democrats.

B - Republicans.

C - Al Qaeda.

LWW
05-15-2012, 04:48 AM
Question #5:

Which party has reneged on every SS promise they have ever made, yet demand that the other side wants to take away SS:

A - Democrats.

B - Republicans.

C - The Muslim Brotherhood.

Qtec
05-15-2012, 05:30 AM
B

Q

llotter
05-15-2012, 06:29 AM
SS marked the ignominious beginning of the Nanny State/Police State when it was decided by the elitists in power that freedom is unworkable because free citizens are not capable of managing their own affairs. Using lies and deception to conceal the true intent of breeding dependency to buy votes, it is no wonder that reneging on promises is the end result. Once dependency is realized however, the lies are of no consequences because the citizens are left with no viable alternatives.

Soflasnapper
05-15-2012, 09:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Question #4:

Which party promised that SS payments would be tax exempt, and then reneged:

A - Democrats.

B - Republicans.

C - Al Qaeda. </div></div>

Under the presidency of Reagan, under new law in '83, SS went from no income tax, to having up to 50% of it eligible for income tax, for persons with about $28,000 or more in total income.

Under the presidency of Clinton, the 50% eligibility of SS income to taxation if over that figure went to 85% taxable, under the same condition.

Taxation of SS began under Reagan, so the answer to this one is B. Moreover, there never was any promise about the tax status of SS benefit payments. Rather there was a Treasury ruling back in the '30s, not any promise from Democrats or FDR.

Considering you meant to say the Democrats did this, you're probably wrong about all the rest of this as well.

This detailed rebuttal (http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp) states that yes, indeed, all your other points are false as well.

LWW
05-15-2012, 10:16 AM
Here are results.

If you answered A to all 5 questions, you are a well informed individual.

If you answered A to 4 questions, you are a less than fully informed person.

If you answered A to 3 questions, you are a person signing consciousness.

If you answered A to 2 questions, you are a victim of public education.

If you answered A to 1 question, you are a person of questionable intellectual capacity.

If you answered no questions, you are an Obsmatron.

LWW
05-15-2012, 10:19 AM
So you deny that the democrats controlled congress in the 1980's?

How unsurprised I am but I'll I've you a 4 ... which s far better than your cousin(s).

Soflasnapper
05-15-2012, 10:20 AM
All 5 'A' answers means someone has been fully propagandized with a false picture, as none of that is true.

The 'sources' for your claims are anonymously created and sent around viral e-mails, without a single shred of documentation.

Perhaps that means the stone cold truth to you, but for anyone with current knowledge of what that means, it means the opposite. Viral e-mails with no documentation references are, in my experience, generally 100% false.

So, why not post up the viral e-mail you used, or crank chiming in on a Free Republic thread or something, to show us your low level of evidentiary standard? Should be funny.

LWW
05-15-2012, 10:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All 5 'A' answers means someone has been fully propagandized with a false picture, as none of that is true.

The 'sources' for your claims are anonymously created and sent around viral e-mails, without a single shred of documentation.

Perhaps that means the stone cold truth to you, but for anyone with current knowledge of what that means, it means the opposite. Viral e-mails with no documentation references are, in my experience, generally 100% false.

So, why not post up the viral e-mail you used, or crank chiming in on a Free Republic thread or something, to show us your low level of evidentiary standard? Should be funny. </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.crystalbull.com/Social-Security-ISC9/)

Soflasnapper
05-15-2012, 12:11 PM
A pamphlet describing some features of a law passed a year before the pamphlet's publishing does not show these were promises upon which the original legislation was passed.

Nor does it show these alleged promises were any part of the language of the bill.

If they were, please show the corresponding language of the enacting legislation.

Beyond those objections, WHICH of the claims you've made are actually supported by the language of this pamphlet?

Isn't the answer, none of them? Are you blind as well as hard of reading?

Here, they promise that SS is voluntary? No.

Here, they promise tax deductibility? No.

Here, they promise no taxation of benefits? No.

LWW
05-15-2012, 01:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A pamphlet describing some features of a law passed a year before the pamphlet's publishing does not show these were promises upon which the original legislation was passed.

Nor does it show these alleged promises were any part of the language of the bill.

If they were, please show the corresponding language of the enacting legislation.

Beyond those objections, WHICH of the claims you've made are actually supported by the language of this pamphlet?

Isn't the answer, none of them? Are you blind as well as hard of reading?

Here, they promise that SS is voluntary? No.

Here, they promise tax deductibility? No.

Here, they promise no taxation of benefits? No. </div></div>

And there is your problem ... you are willing to accept whatever excuse you can find and embrace it as hoy writ.

This is similar to the dems and Obama repeating that hi plan would lower premiums by $2.5k per year. Well now that they passed a bill that didn't do that, you give them a pass as if they never said it at all. Clinton is another example ... Since he kept the promises he intended to keep ... and to this day the Clintonista accept the idea that the promises made that were never kept, which my any sane person's definition is a lie, simply didn't exist. Down the party mandated memory hole they went.

This FDR forgiveness has been going on since the early seventies at least. Being blessed enough to have a libertarian history professor in college I researched and studied the 1932 presidential election in depth and from the library archives of first hand accounts from te press in that era.

FDR, much like Obama, promised a plethora of things never delivered. Among these was a max tax of 1%, a refund to the heirs if one died young, and whatever the dumb masses wanted to here.

Following the election, FDR mainly continued Hoover policy ... All th while blaming Hoover.

In closing ... none fthis is new. Fascists tell the dumb masses whatever it is they want to here, and then blame a scapegoat when the fascist's policies fail. Following that, the thugocracy demands that the dumb masses wipe all the lies from their memory ... and replace those realities with an alternate history.

The reason fascists repeatedly use this snake oil sales tactic s simple enough to understand ... it works.

LWW
05-15-2012, 01:45 PM
HERE (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/locations.html) Is where the SSA admits that FDR sold the program as insurance with individual accounts for each worker.

Soflasnapper
05-15-2012, 02:53 PM
No it doesn't. There is nothing said about that whatsoever.

I do check your links, you know. Bluffing is not going to work with me.

MY (private) INSURANCE COVERAGE provides me with several kinds of insurance. That does not mean they have a special account reserved to take care of all my future needed payments. It means they have a sufficient collective reserve to pay everyone's future needed payments, based on an actuarial analysis, and consistent with the requirements of law.

Soflasnapper
05-15-2012, 03:23 PM
This is similar to the dems and Obama repeating that hi plan would lower premiums by $2.5k per year. Well now that they passed a bill that didn't do that, you give them a pass as if they never said it at all. Clinton is another example ... Since he kept the promises he intended to keep ... and to this day the Clintonista accept the idea that the promises made that were never kept, which my any sane person's definition is a lie, simply didn't exist. Down the party mandated memory hole they went.

Yes, it is similar, in that you've misrepresented all these things as well.

I've already responded on the $2,500 reduction in premium per average family claim. My claim was not that it wasn't said (in fact, I linked to a half-dozen video clips of him saying it). My claim was that it couldn't take place until it went into complete effect (which it hasn't to date). And then that it represented a reduction of that amount from what it would otherwise be at that time.

As for Clinton, you are quoting one guy who said what you said all Democrats say or believe (George Stephanopoulis). Frankly, Clinton put hundreds, literally hundreds, of campaign pledges in writing ahead of his first election, in his book co-authored with Gore, "Putting America First," I believe it was. The oracular Norman Ornstein, of the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI), wrote that Clinton's record of achieving his promises was astonishingly good, involving delivering on hundreds of those claims, at a rate rarely seen by any president.

Unkept promises are not lies, if the effort was made but thwarted, as most of them were so thwarted. It's also no lie if the attempt was made, and a compromise short of the whole promise was put in place. Clinton hit at about a 2/3rds rate of fulfilling these literally hundreds of promises, which is not a record of failure or lying at all, but a strong record never seen before with such a full raft of written promises. Reagan may have done slightly better, but he had less than a dozen such promises to keep, and failed totally on balancing the budget, or the reduction of the size and expense of government.

LWW
05-16-2012, 04:37 AM
So when FDR said :

"Get these facts straight. The Act provides two kinds of insurance for the worker..."

He wasn't actually passing it off as insurance?

Dude ... you are truly beyond hope.

LWW
05-16-2012, 04:42 AM
So when the FDR regime said, in it's own propaganda I linked to, that:

"What you get from the Government plan will always be more than you have paid in taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way."

They weren't actually saying that *what you get from the Government plan will always be more than you have paid in taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way.

Wow, just WOW!

LWW
05-16-2012, 04:46 AM
And when the FDR regime said:

"If you should die before you begin to get your monthly checks, your family will get a payment in cash, amounting to 3 cents on every dollar of wages you have earned after 1936. If, for example, you should die at age 64, and if you had earned $25 a week for 10 years before that time, your family would receive $455. On the other hand, if you have not worked enough to get the regular monthly checks by the time you are 65, you will get a lump sum, or if you should die your family or estate would get a lump sum. The amount of this, too, will be 3 cents on every dollar of wages you earn after 1936."

They weren't actually saying that if you should die before you begin to get your monthly checks, your family will get a payment in cash, amounting to 3 cents on every dollar of wages you have earned after 1936. If, for example, you should die at age 64, and if you had earned $25 a week for 10 years before that time, your family would receive $455. On the other hand, if you have not worked enough to get the regular monthly checks by the time you are 65, you will get a lump sum, or if you should die your family or estate would get a lump sum. The amount of this, too, will be 3 cents on every dollar of wages you earn after 1936.

Qtec
05-16-2012, 06:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No it doesn't. There is nothing said about that whatsoever. </div></div>

Correct. I read it as well. If LWW was honest, he would have quoted the part in his link that made his point. He didn't. He couldn't because its not there.

Q

Qtec
05-16-2012, 06:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">HERE Is where the SSA admits that FDR sold the program as insurance <span style='font-size: 20pt'>with individual accounts for each worker.</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No it doesn't. There is nothing said about that whatsoever. </div></div>

Now you change the subject.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So when FDR said :

"Get these facts straight. The Act provides two kinds of insurance for the worker..."

He wasn't actually passing it off as insurance?

Dude ... you are truly beyond hope. </div></div>

Another epic fail.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Get these facts straight.

The Act provides for two kinds of insurance for the worker.

For that insurance both the employer and the worker pay premiums, just as you pay premiums on any other insurance policy. Those premiums are collected in the form of the taxes you hear so much about.

The first kind of insurance covers old age. Here the employer contributes one dollar of premium for every dollar of premium contributed by the worker; <span style='font-size: 20pt'>but both dollars are held by the Government</span> solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age.

In effect, we have set up a savings account for the old age of the worker. Because the employer is called upon to contribute on a fifty-fifty basis, that savings account gives exactly two dollars of security for every dollar put up by the worker.

The second kind of insurance is unemployment insurance to help the worker and his family over the difficult days when he loses his job. For the unemployment security of the worker, the employer under the Federal law puts up the entire premium- two dollars. The benefits of this insurance go 100 percent to the worker, none to the employer. But the premiums for this unemployment insurance so far as the Federal Government is concerned are paid 100 percent by the employer.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15212#ixzz1v29UVh00
</div></div>

Still waiting for you to provide a quote about 'individual accounts '.



Q

Soflasnapper
05-16-2012, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So when FDR said :

"Get these facts straight. The Act provides two kinds of insurance for the worker..."

He wasn't actually passing it off as insurance?

Dude ... you are truly beyond hope. </div></div>

Of course he was passing it off as insurance. Which it was. But that isn't one of your talking points listed above. Perhaps you forgot your own arguments?

If your earlier point were to be supported by this, he would have been talking about sacrosanct inviolable personal RETIREMENT savings accounts, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>NOT INSURANCE.</span>

It's also like, he said, army regiments. But it would be a mistake to say he called SS an army regiment. He compared the two things, but did not assert they were identical.

Soflasnapper
05-16-2012, 08:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So when the FDR regime said, in it's own propaganda I linked to, that:

"What you get from the Government plan will always be more than you have paid in taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way."

They weren't actually saying that *what you get from the Government plan will always be more than you have paid in taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way.

Wow, just WOW! </div></div>

That was true under the regime passed under FDR, and remained true of that regime all throughout FDR's time in office. It's probably mainly true still to this day, considering the employer match doubles an individual's contribution.

It may no longer yield a better return, or even usually a better return, than one can get on their own, BECAUSE REAGAN JACKED UP THE TAX RATE ACHIEVED BY THEN BY ABOUT 50%. You may recall that Reagan was a great fan of FDR's, but surely, one cannot attribute Reagan's changes to FDR.

LWW
05-16-2012, 09:39 AM
How did Reagan do this?

Can you show me where in the COTUS hehas such power?

What's that?

You will makeup anything ... no matter ho absurd ... To hide that a dem controlled congress passed the legislation before he could sign it, and that it was in fact a patch on FDR's Ponzi scheme.

But ... I already knew that.

LWW
05-16-2012, 09:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So when FDR said :

"Get these facts straight. The Act provides two kinds of insurance for the worker..."

He wasn't actually passing it off as insurance?

Dude ... you are truly beyond hope. </div></div>

Of course he was passing it off as insurance. Which it was. But that isn't one of your talking points listed above. Perhaps you forgot your own arguments?

If your earlier point were to be supported by this, he would have been talking about sacrosanct inviolable personal RETIREMENT savings accounts, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>NOT INSURANCE.</span>

It's also like, he said, army regiments. But it would be a mistake to say he called SS an army regiment. He compared the two things, but did not assert they were identical. </div></div>

Try reading the data provided.

LWW
05-16-2012, 09:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still waiting for you to provide a quote about 'individual accounts '.



Q </div></div>

I did, that you won't read it ... or can't comprehend it ... isn't my problem.

This is where you explain that just because the FDR regime told the public "beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you" doesn't at all mean that the FDR regime ever said that beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you.

The absolute refusal of the cabal to see the truth is amazing.

LWW
05-16-2012, 10:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> HERE (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/locations.html) Is where the SSA admits that FDR sold the program as insurance with individual accounts for each worker. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No it doesn't. There is nothing said about that whatsoever. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So when FDR said :

"Get these facts straight. The Act provides two kinds of insurance for the worker..."

He wasn't actually passing it off as insurance?

Dude ... you are truly beyond hope. </div></div>

Of course he was passing it off as insurance. Which it was. But that isn't one of your talking points listed above. </div></div>

And there we hav it ... you went from FDR never said it to of course FDR said it, but that wasn't anything that I claimed him to say.

So your argument boils down to claiming that FDR never said it was insurance and individual accounts, but that what he actually said was that it was insurance with individual accounts.

Wanna buy some magic beans?

Qtec
05-16-2012, 10:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I did, that you won't read it ... or can't comprehend it ... isn't my problem.
</div></div>
For the second time, here it is..


..................................Waiting!

Q

LWW
05-16-2012, 10:53 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">I did, that you won't read it ... or can't comprehend it ... isn't my problem.
</div></div>
For the second time, here it is..


..................................Waiting!

Q </div></div>

It's been linked to and quoted for you.

Do you have a second grader handy that can show you how to figure it out?

LWW
05-16-2012, 10:56 AM
http://www.crystalbull.com/media/Social-Security-ISC9_lg-4b5947dd5fbbc9b9c6d53c58824893c0e0eb4e39.jpg

For the edification of those who so bitterly cling to ignance.

Soflasnapper
05-16-2012, 12:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did Reagan do this?

Can you show me where in the COTUS hehas such power?

What's that?

You will makeup anything ... no matter ho absurd ... To hide that a dem controlled congress passed the legislation before he could sign it, and that it was in fact a patch on FDR's Ponzi scheme.

But ... I already knew that. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In September [of 1981] I announced that I would appoint a bipartisan task force to work with the President and the Congress to reach two specific goals: propose realistic, long-term reforms to put social security back on a sound financial footing and forge a working bipartisan consensus so that the necessary reforms will be passed into law.

Senate Majority Leader Baker (R-TN), Speaker O'Neill, and I agreed we would each select five members for a new national commission on social security. Today I am pleased and honored to announce the formation of the commission and that Alan Greenspan has agreed at my request to serve as Chairman of that commission. [--President Ronald Reagan's statement, dated December 16, 1981 reproduced here. (http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan9.html) </div></div>

He co-appointed the members, after calling for the commission, and appointed Greenspan himself as the chairman. Once the commission had reported, Reagan pushed its proposals as his own, and achieved its passage through Congress (of which his party held the majority in the Senate).

In other words, he did that the same way most presidents do what they are credited with-- start a policy, and get it through Congress by pushing for it with their party and the other one. It's the same way Reagan got his tax cuts through to law, although lacking any direct power to achieve it-- make the proposal, talk up the proposal, and use the persuasive powers of his office to make that case to lawmakers and the public.

Soflasnapper
05-16-2012, 12:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still waiting for you to provide a quote about 'individual accounts '.



Q </div></div>

I did, that you won't read it ... or can't comprehend it ... isn't my problem.

This is where you explain that just because the FDR regime told the public "beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you" doesn't at all mean that the FDR regime ever said that beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you.

The absolute refusal of the cabal to see the truth is amazing.
</div></div>

I get 'my account' statement from the SS annually. The statement reflects my last however many years' contributions, and then the achieved level of benefit payments as of my retirement ages, under current law.

Similarly, I may receive a statement from my insurance company, showing my past premium payments, what I've achieved so far this year in terms of my deductible, and as to my co-pays for subsequent billings after meeting my deductible.

In neither case does that statement of account require that the company or country set aside MY CONTRIBUTIONS only into MY ACCOUNT, from which all payments to my benefit are made, and from which their profit is taken, or whatever. Those are instead pooled into large accounts, and then paid out according to law and my earnings history, my retirement age, my actual health care policy and what's been paid or not this year.

I fail to understand what difference you are trying to make between insurance and SS. That I have an insurance policy does not create segregated funds, nor does my payments into and eligibility for SS, but both act as insurance.

Do you think unless Humana puts my own money aside, and holds it in reserve, there's no possible way I can be assured of payment (under contract law)? Co-mingling of all payments into and out of the system isn't possible, and cannot work? Or what?

LWW
05-16-2012, 01:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still waiting for you to provide a quote about 'individual accounts '.



Q </div></div>

I did, that you won't read it ... or can't comprehend it ... isn't my problem.

This is where you explain that just because the FDR regime told the public "beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you" doesn't at all mean that the FDR regime ever said that beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you.

The absolute refusal of the cabal to see the truth is amazing.
</div></div>

I get 'my account' statement from the SS annually. </div></div>

No, you don't.

What you get is a form telling you what you have paid in and an estimate of what you might get back.

If it was a personal account, the balance would pass to your heirs when you died young. It doesn't.

If it was an insurance policy you would have. Guaranteed benefit. You don't.

There is much case law on this.

SS is nothing but a tax with no guarantee of any payment to anyone at anytime.

Soflasnapper
05-16-2012, 02:44 PM
According to your own definitions, perhaps that is all true.

However, if we regard SS benefits as a pension, which for the retired community and that part of SS they receive is accurate, then your claimed distinctions melt away.

A pension which is yours by right and by law can be nullified, if the corporation it is from is bankrupted. That has happened to unions and their guarantees under their union contract with the corporation, under that circumstance.

It needn't involve extending the pension to your widow or heirs, and it certainly doesn't allow you to cash it all out in a lump sum, generally.

It's not unlike taking a lottery win in annual payments. If you do not live long enough to receive the total payment over time, you lose the balance that remains unpaid to you as of your demise.

As to the variability of SS payments in the future, they are owed to you and must be paid under law, unless and until due process of law (changing the law) says differently, down the road. About the same as that you are due under law whatever your pension benefits from your company's retirement plan amount to, unless cancelled in bankruptcy.

LWW
05-16-2012, 03:22 PM
Your desperation is comical.

A company can go broke, that's true ... but they can't arbitrarily cut or eliminate benefits. Your eloped state can, and eventually will.

Dance some more for us.

Stretch
05-16-2012, 10:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><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">I did, that you won't read it ... or can't comprehend it ... isn't my problem.
</div></div>
For the second time, here it is..


..................................Waiting!

Q </div></div>

It's been linked to and quoted for you.

Do you have a second grader handy that can show you how to figure it out? </div></div>

Why? When we have you for that. Second grade logic is your specialty. St.

Soflasnapper
05-17-2012, 09:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your desperation is comical.

A company can go broke, that's true ... but they can't arbitrarily cut or eliminate benefits. Your eloped state can, and eventually will.

Dance some more for us. </div></div>

Companies, and entire industries, sometimes go into managed bankruptcy. The airline industry is an example, and the airline unionized workers have seen arbitrary changes to their plans, under bankruptcy courts.

The current Social Security regime is set in law, and COULD ONLY be changed, if the law is changed. Requiring the change to be passed through both houses of Congress, and then, subject to the POTUS veto. With THE very largest voting block, at 50+ millions on its way to 80+ millions-- the retired cohort-- hanging in the balance.