Watch this... Hey libs, do you have any examples of successful socialist countries? List them.

[bripat9643]

Go ahead, we are interested in hearing these wonderful successes.

Please, list the countries.

The USA. The federal government will, within a couple of weeks, be the biggest shareholder in American Airlines. They will also own parts of Southwest, Jet Blue, United, and other airlines. Meantime, they are sending out checks for $1,200 to everybody , as well as propping up private industry with $2.2 trillion dollars, not to mention the billions already given to farmers. In short, Trump makes Karl Marx look like a fiscal conservative.

I agree. Which of your candidates proposes dramatically cutting government spending?

Rigth now, the real question is s which one will NOT increase the government spending at the rate of the Rump. The US will be in serious trouble (before the Virus) by 2025 and if we continued (without the virus) and past the point of no return. Now, enter the 1200 buck and more per citizen check and we have to do something fast. Not only do we need to trim the fat at the Government, it's going to take higher taxes for everyone. Otherwise, the US joins Greece. And the last thing I would care to see is for the EU to call the shots in America like they do in Greece. Rump is NOT the President to go into 2021 with financially.

Great.. which of your candidates will reduce the increase in spending on Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Social Security, and the endless entitlements that make up 3/4ths of the Federal Budget? Which one?

Greece had drastically higher tax rates than the US, and they went bankrupt. Increasing taxes is not the solution, or Greece should be the economic leader of Europe.

Rump is decreasing medicare, Medicaid, SS. And my SS is NOT an entitlement. I paid into that fund for decades and it's MY MONEY. I pay every month for Medicare. I don't qualify for Medicaid since I make too much and don't really miss it anyway. And Medicaid is a State Run program. As for the VA, I am watching my Tricare go to hell in a hand basket these days. Like Medicare, the cost of it is progged to go up in 2021 if Rump get's his way.

Greece made some serious economical blunders. Taxes didn't cover it and the people refused to pay any more tax increases. In affect, Greece was bailed out by the rest of the EU. It's a forgone conclusion that the year 2025 (without that 1200 bucks that just showed up in my account this morning) is the point of no return if the US continues the same path under Rump's guidance. No Economist has had the balls to come out with exactly when the US will be bankrupt or drop to a triple B credit rating (which means no more loans and it's pay as you go). But in 2025, that is exactly what will happen. Not the end of the world but you can definitely see the end of the world from there.

Now, enter the Virus and the Stimulus money. 2025 doesn't change but unless there is a HUGE change somewhere the end is nearer than before. Rump is NOT the brilliant Economist he claims to be. Not to say he hasn't had the brilliant economists available to him, he just ignores them. Time to let the Grownups take over. And NO, I am not saying Biden is a Grownup but he knows and listens to a whole hell of a lot of the grownups.

You paid taxes into the government for decades. It's no more "Your money" than my taxes used to pay for your Social Security, is my money.

Social Security, is a tax... and a welfare payment. It is no different than your Federal gasoline tax, and food stamps. No different than your Federal cell phone tax, and an Obama phone. No different than the estate tax, and government housing for a druggie.

Medicaid is state run? But where is the money coming from?

View attachment 323838

47.6% of the Medicaid budget of states, comes from Federal money.

As for the VA, I am watching my Tricare go to hell in a hand basket these days. Like Medicare, the cost of it is progged to go up in 2021 if Rump get's his way.

So the country can go to hell in a debt crash like Greece... as long as you get what you want? You know everyone else living off the tax payers, says the same thing?

Look you can't have it both ways. You can't complain that Trump is over spending, and then turn around and complain that Trump isn't spending enough.

Now, enter the Virus and the Stimulus money. 2025 doesn't change but unless there is a HUGE change somewhere the end is nearer than before. Rump is NOT the brilliant Economist he claims to be. Not to say he hasn't had the brilliant economists available to him, he just ignores them. Time to let the Grownups take over. And NO, I am not saying Biden is a Grownup but he knows and listens to a whole hell of a lot of the grownups.

Great. We agree. Which candidate would you point to, that wants to cut entitlement spending?

SSI does not go into the general fund. It goes int it's own fund. It's a trust. The other taxes are taxes. SS has never been a tax and that's MY MONEY. I pay into that fund every month even though I do collect it. But my income, part of it still pays SS. I could elect not to pay it month to month. But my Government Retirement still pays SS. But it's not a Tax. It just means that if more people do that, the SS system will last longer. That is, unless the Politicos don't get any greedier than they already are.

You can call it anything you want but I could not have paid a dime into SS and no money would have been waiting for me like it is today. Again, it's not a tax. It's a trust. One trust that your buddies need to stop dipping into when they find themselves overwhelmed through insane spending.

Robot Check

Read the book. Social Security never had a separate fund. It's not a trust. There is on trust. If you were to organize a gang, and go rob the Social Security Trust Fund, you would end up spending more money on gas, than you stole from the Trust fund, because there is no trust fund.

When Obama told you people, that if they didn't raise the debt limit, that Social Security checks were going to be cut, he wasn't lying.

Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3

In CBS News interview, President Obama says Social Security checks may not go out Aug. 3 if no deficit deal is struck

www.cbsnews.com

That was not a lie. There is no money in Social Security. None. Social Security is paid out of general revenue. Social Security taxes go into the General Revenue. That is how social security was setup since FDR.

There is no money waiting for you today.

Listen..... If all the tax payers today, refused to pay Social Security, there would be zero money in social security. There is no money waiting for you.

Our system works identically to Greece's system. That's why when the government went bankrupt, all the pensioners sat outside and wept bitterly because they had nothing.

The only money you have for retirement, guaranteed that is waiting for you, is the money you save and invest.

And let me warn you about something else. If the next generation of tax payers decides they don't want to pay for your retirement, they can take it from you. Unlike your 401K where you can take your investment to court, and demand compensation... you have ZERO legal right to social security. You can go look up the court case from the 1960s. You have no legal right to Social Security. None. That's what the Supreme Court of the US said.

And you want to know why? Because Social Security is an income tax, and a welfare program, just like I said. The court said you have no more of a right to Social Security, than you do a welfare check.

Because that's what Social Security is. By the way FDR himself in court, argued that Social Security was an income tax and welfare system.

This is the truth. These are the facts. Read the book. Learn.

The book isn't correct and never has been. It's a conspiracy writer. So, we just cue the music

If you can prove even one single sentence of that book as a lie, I'd love to see your proof.

Until then, you are just a liar now.

The lie is in your presenting it to make your argument. Your argument fails. No where in that book does it say that there is NO SS fund. But it does talk about those that don't need it. But the problem is, they paid a kings ransom in and get quite a bit of it back. I think he would agree that we need a cap on income when you are drawing SS. But he just complains about other things. But nowhere does he say that there isn't a seperate fund for SS. But he does not call it an entitlement so you assume that's what he means.

He also goes into Medicare and Medicaid. While Medicaid is free, Medicare is not. I pay every month for Plan B since by law, I have to have it to retain my Tricare. I would love to get rid of Medicare Part B and go with a better alternative. But if I never had the option for Medicare, my Tricare would cover almost every dime save anywhere from 175 to 350 bucks a year. Yes, Medicare is an entitlement. And, in case you haven't noticed, Medicaid is controlled by the State more than the Feds regardless of where the money comes from. Medicaid is an entitlement but without it, the really poor would be sent home to die.

Then he goes off on Welfare. Hell, I go off on welfare. And I know there are able bodies that draw welfare. But there is a limit to how long they can do that. Most Able Bodied Workers that draw some form of Welfare are EMPLOYED!. There is no way that the jobs offered to them can make it to a Living Wage. I know BBAs that work retail. I know of one Geologist driving school bus. And they are all eligible for some form of Welfare. But Welfare programs like SNAP needs to be cleaned up. Exactly why would anyone need Energy Drinks and Soft Drinks? There are a lot of things like that including the Cash Draw. Your Author doesn't cover those very well.

Mostly the book is a bitch session trying to get us ready for cuts in many badly needed(and poorly run) programs. It doesn't cover Corporate Welfare on iota. And that's another book that should be written.

Then you didn't read the book. Because he detailed quiet clearly that there is no Social Security Fund. There never was.

Those that don't need it? Since when does "need" determine if you get a retirement?

I have a tons of money in purchased assets that I am have invested into for retirement. When I retire, is my 401K or IRA, or anything else, going to ask me "Do you really need this?".

And here's the other side... is it really a "Social Security Trust Fund", if they can simply determine that you don't "need" it, and therefore you can't have it?

The very fact that you can even discuss the possibility of denying people a return on the money "they paid in" proves conclusively everything I have been saying. Because in any other retirement system, no one could simply decide you didn't need it. The fact you can entertain the idea of confiscating people's retirements because they don't need it, proves it does not really exist.

If you tried to take my private 401K or IRA, I would sue the absolute crap out of you, and bankrupt your butt in court. I have legal rights, to my legal property, and I'll fight you for it until the end of time.

But Social Security, you own nothing. There is no account with your name on it. No money in a bank, and no assets that you own.

He also goes into Medicare and Medicaid. While Medicaid is free, Medicare is not. I pay every month for Plan B since by law, I have to have it to retain my Tricare.

That is not relevant. Medicare and Medicaid do not cover the full cost of care, whether you claim it is free or claim you have to pay for it.

If the cost of a service is $12,000 a year, and you pay only $1,000.... that's still a burden on government tax payers of $11,000 a year. So saying you have to pay a little, doesn't mean jack.

It doesn't cover Corporate Welfare on iota.

Name the corporate welfare. I dare you.

You are just repeating what the RTwingnutjob talking heads are saying. I read enough of the book to realize that it's a bitch session that blames all on the "Intitlments". It's about the Rich bitching about the Poor. Not one mention of Corporate Welfare at all. Of course not. The Rich stands in line buying as many Politicos as it can for millions while they reap billions and trillions from the various programs that are gifted to them. When the Author (he's in his late 90s now so I don't foresee another book unless ghost written) addresses the whole problem instead of bitching about the poor then I will read his work. Until then, it's just another Rtwingnutjob talking head.

What the hell is "the whole problem?" Of what relevance is it to the question of whether there is an SS trust fund? The bottom line is that there is nothing of value in the so-called "trust fund." It's a con, and you fell for it.

 

[Theowl32]

Why are there only white socialist countries on Mac's list and has any left winger ever claimed that the brown socialist countries are really successful?

Wait, do they think Cuba, Venezuela or any of those shitholes in Africa are successful socialist countries?

If so, then why didn't Mac list them and why didn't the racist leftists that liked his racist list point out the countries that Mac listed have such a high density of whiteness?

Hmmmmm?

 

[Mac1958]

Why are there only white socialist countries on Mac's list and has any left winger ever claimed that the brown socialist countries are really successful?

Wait, do they think Cuba, Venezuela or any of those shitholes in Africa are successful socialist countries?

If so, then why didn't Mac list them and why didn't the racist leftists that liked his racist list point out the countries that Mac listed have such a high density of whiteness?

Hmmmmm?

You sure post about me a lot, without tagging me. And you sure are consumed with race.

Let's try this: Please provide a list of countries that you feel are socialist. Then I'll see if there are any there are any that are successful.

Then we'll all be working from the same place.

Go.

 

[Theowl32]

Why are there only white socialist countries on Mac's list and has any left winger ever claimed that the brown socialist countries are really successful?

Wait, do they think Cuba, Venezuela or any of those shitholes in Africa are successful socialist countries?

If so, then why didn't Mac list them and why didn't the racist leftists that liked his racist list point out the countries that Mac listed have such a high density of whiteness?

Hmmmmm?

You sure post about me a lot, without tagging me. And you sure are consumed with race.

Let's try this: Please provide a list of countries that you feel are socialist. Then I'll see if there are any there are any that are successful.

Then we'll all be working from the same place.

Go.

No, you are a racist. You had your chance to list the successful socialist countries and when you did, each country is whiter than milk.

Proving what racists you all are.

Funny, we are obsessed with race? You are the emperor of identity politics. That is all you think about. 24x7 365.

Have any more patronizing you want to do about minorities in this country?

Go ahead and list some successful socialist countries. Please do.

I mean you already did, but go ahead. Take your time. List some successful socialist countries that are not so.....lily white.

Thanks.

Lol

 

[Mac1958]

Why are there only white socialist countries on Mac's list and has any left winger ever claimed that the brown socialist countries are really successful?

Wait, do they think Cuba, Venezuela or any of those shitholes in Africa are successful socialist countries?

If so, then why didn't Mac list them and why didn't the racist leftists that liked his racist list point out the countries that Mac listed have such a high density of whiteness?

Hmmmmm?

You sure post about me a lot, without tagging me. And you sure are consumed with race.

Let's try this: Please provide a list of countries that you feel are socialist. Then I'll see if there are any there are any that are successful.

Then we'll all be working from the same place.

Go.

No, you are a racist. You had your chance to list the successful socialist countries and when you did, each country is whiter than milk.

Proving what racists you all are.

Funny, we are obsessed with race? You are the emperor of identity politics. That is all you think about. 24x7 365.

Have any more patronizing you want to do about minorities in this country?

Go ahead and list some successful socialist countries. Please do.

I mean you already did, but go ahead. Take your time. List some successful socialist countries that are not so.....lily white.

Thanks.

Lol

So you don't want an actual answer to your "question". You just want to discuss race.

Okay. I know what you think about race, and we both know I can prove it.

So let's stipulate to what you're saying. My ANSWER IS "NONE". At least have the balls to tell us what you really think about those dark-skinned countries and why they're unsuccessful.

Go ahead. Don't dance around it. Don't be afraid. Tell us what you REALLY think of them, and WHY you keep bringing this up.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mac1958]

Ya gotta love the OP trying to deny he is what he has already said he is, loud and clear.

Sick of their shit and we should not hide it anymore. When they call me a fucking racist, and I say you damn right I am!!! Fuck those fucking people!

What a coward.

 

[Andylusion]

Go ahead, we are interested in hearing these wonderful successes.

Please, list the countries.

The USA. The federal government will, within a couple of weeks, be the biggest shareholder in American Airlines. They will also own parts of Southwest, Jet Blue, United, and other airlines. Meantime, they are sending out checks for $1,200 to everybody , as well as propping up private industry with $2.2 trillion dollars, not to mention the billions already given to farmers. In short, Trump makes Karl Marx look like a fiscal conservative.

I agree. Which of your candidates proposes dramatically cutting government spending?

Rigth now, the real question is s which one will NOT increase the government spending at the rate of the Rump. The US will be in serious trouble (before the Virus) by 2025 and if we continued (without the virus) and past the point of no return. Now, enter the 1200 buck and more per citizen check and we have to do something fast. Not only do we need to trim the fat at the Government, it's going to take higher taxes for everyone. Otherwise, the US joins Greece. And the last thing I would care to see is for the EU to call the shots in America like they do in Greece. Rump is NOT the President to go into 2021 with financially.

Great.. which of your candidates will reduce the increase in spending on Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Social Security, and the endless entitlements that make up 3/4ths of the Federal Budget? Which one?

Greece had drastically higher tax rates than the US, and they went bankrupt. Increasing taxes is not the solution, or Greece should be the economic leader of Europe.

Rump is decreasing medicare, Medicaid, SS. And my SS is NOT an entitlement. I paid into that fund for decades and it's MY MONEY. I pay every month for Medicare. I don't qualify for Medicaid since I make too much and don't really miss it anyway. And Medicaid is a State Run program. As for the VA, I am watching my Tricare go to hell in a hand basket these days. Like Medicare, the cost of it is progged to go up in 2021 if Rump get's his way.

Greece made some serious economical blunders. Taxes didn't cover it and the people refused to pay any more tax increases. In affect, Greece was bailed out by the rest of the EU. It's a forgone conclusion that the year 2025 (without that 1200 bucks that just showed up in my account this morning) is the point of no return if the US continues the same path under Rump's guidance. No Economist has had the balls to come out with exactly when the US will be bankrupt or drop to a triple B credit rating (which means no more loans and it's pay as you go). But in 2025, that is exactly what will happen. Not the end of the world but you can definitely see the end of the world from there.

Now, enter the Virus and the Stimulus money. 2025 doesn't change but unless there is a HUGE change somewhere the end is nearer than before. Rump is NOT the brilliant Economist he claims to be. Not to say he hasn't had the brilliant economists available to him, he just ignores them. Time to let the Grownups take over. And NO, I am not saying Biden is a Grownup but he knows and listens to a whole hell of a lot of the grownups.

You paid taxes into the government for decades. It's no more "Your money" than my taxes used to pay for your Social Security, is my money.

Social Security, is a tax... and a welfare payment. It is no different than your Federal gasoline tax, and food stamps. No different than your Federal cell phone tax, and an Obama phone. No different than the estate tax, and government housing for a druggie.

Medicaid is state run? But where is the money coming from?

View attachment 323838

47.6% of the Medicaid budget of states, comes from Federal money.

As for the VA, I am watching my Tricare go to hell in a hand basket these days. Like Medicare, the cost of it is progged to go up in 2021 if Rump get's his way.

So the country can go to hell in a debt crash like Greece... as long as you get what you want? You know everyone else living off the tax payers, says the same thing?

Look you can't have it both ways. You can't complain that Trump is over spending, and then turn around and complain that Trump isn't spending enough.

Now, enter the Virus and the Stimulus money. 2025 doesn't change but unless there is a HUGE change somewhere the end is nearer than before. Rump is NOT the brilliant Economist he claims to be. Not to say he hasn't had the brilliant economists available to him, he just ignores them. Time to let the Grownups take over. And NO, I am not saying Biden is a Grownup but he knows and listens to a whole hell of a lot of the grownups.

Great. We agree. Which candidate would you point to, that wants to cut entitlement spending?

SSI does not go into the general fund. It goes int it's own fund. It's a trust. The other taxes are taxes. SS has never been a tax and that's MY MONEY. I pay into that fund every month even though I do collect it. But my income, part of it still pays SS. I could elect not to pay it month to month. But my Government Retirement still pays SS. But it's not a Tax. It just means that if more people do that, the SS system will last longer. That is, unless the Politicos don't get any greedier than they already are.

You can call it anything you want but I could not have paid a dime into SS and no money would have been waiting for me like it is today. Again, it's not a tax. It's a trust. One trust that your buddies need to stop dipping into when they find themselves overwhelmed through insane spending.

Robot Check

Read the book. Social Security never had a separate fund. It's not a trust. There is on trust. If you were to organize a gang, and go rob the Social Security Trust Fund, you would end up spending more money on gas, than you stole from the Trust fund, because there is no trust fund.

When Obama told you people, that if they didn't raise the debt limit, that Social Security checks were going to be cut, he wasn't lying.

Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3

In CBS News interview, President Obama says Social Security checks may not go out Aug. 3 if no deficit deal is struck

www.cbsnews.com

That was not a lie. There is no money in Social Security. None. Social Security is paid out of general revenue. Social Security taxes go into the General Revenue. That is how social security was setup since FDR.

There is no money waiting for you today.

Listen..... If all the tax payers today, refused to pay Social Security, there would be zero money in social security. There is no money waiting for you.

Our system works identically to Greece's system. That's why when the government went bankrupt, all the pensioners sat outside and wept bitterly because they had nothing.

The only money you have for retirement, guaranteed that is waiting for you, is the money you save and invest.

And let me warn you about something else. If the next generation of tax payers decides they don't want to pay for your retirement, they can take it from you. Unlike your 401K where you can take your investment to court, and demand compensation... you have ZERO legal right to social security. You can go look up the court case from the 1960s. You have no legal right to Social Security. None. That's what the Supreme Court of the US said.

And you want to know why? Because Social Security is an income tax, and a welfare program, just like I said. The court said you have no more of a right to Social Security, than you do a welfare check.

Because that's what Social Security is. By the way FDR himself in court, argued that Social Security was an income tax and welfare system.

This is the truth. These are the facts. Read the book. Learn.

The book isn't correct and never has been. It's a conspiracy writer. So, we just cue the music

If you can prove even one single sentence of that book as a lie, I'd love to see your proof.

Until then, you are just a liar now.

The lie is in your presenting it to make your argument. Your argument fails. No where in that book does it say that there is NO SS fund. But it does talk about those that don't need it. But the problem is, they paid a kings ransom in and get quite a bit of it back. I think he would agree that we need a cap on income when you are drawing SS. But he just complains about other things. But nowhere does he say that there isn't a seperate fund for SS. But he does not call it an entitlement so you assume that's what he means.

He also goes into Medicare and Medicaid. While Medicaid is free, Medicare is not. I pay every month for Plan B since by law, I have to have it to retain my Tricare. I would love to get rid of Medicare Part B and go with a better alternative. But if I never had the option for Medicare, my Tricare would cover almost every dime save anywhere from 175 to 350 bucks a year. Yes, Medicare is an entitlement. And, in case you haven't noticed, Medicaid is controlled by the State more than the Feds regardless of where the money comes from. Medicaid is an entitlement but without it, the really poor would be sent home to die.

Then he goes off on Welfare. Hell, I go off on welfare. And I know there are able bodies that draw welfare. But there is a limit to how long they can do that. Most Able Bodied Workers that draw some form of Welfare are EMPLOYED!. There is no way that the jobs offered to them can make it to a Living Wage. I know BBAs that work retail. I know of one Geologist driving school bus. And they are all eligible for some form of Welfare. But Welfare programs like SNAP needs to be cleaned up. Exactly why would anyone need Energy Drinks and Soft Drinks? There are a lot of things like that including the Cash Draw. Your Author doesn't cover those very well.

Mostly the book is a bitch session trying to get us ready for cuts in many badly needed(and poorly run) programs. It doesn't cover Corporate Welfare on iota. And that's another book that should be written.

Then you didn't read the book. Because he detailed quiet clearly that there is no Social Security Fund. There never was.

Those that don't need it? Since when does "need" determine if you get a retirement?

I have a tons of money in purchased assets that I am have invested into for retirement. When I retire, is my 401K or IRA, or anything else, going to ask me "Do you really need this?".

And here's the other side... is it really a "Social Security Trust Fund", if they can simply determine that you don't "need" it, and therefore you can't have it?

The very fact that you can even discuss the possibility of denying people a return on the money "they paid in" proves conclusively everything I have been saying. Because in any other retirement system, no one could simply decide you didn't need it. The fact you can entertain the idea of confiscating people's retirements because they don't need it, proves it does not really exist.

If you tried to take my private 401K or IRA, I would sue the absolute crap out of you, and bankrupt your butt in court. I have legal rights, to my legal property, and I'll fight you for it until the end of time.

But Social Security, you own nothing. There is no account with your name on it. No money in a bank, and no assets that you own.

He also goes into Medicare and Medicaid. While Medicaid is free, Medicare is not. I pay every month for Plan B since by law, I have to have it to retain my Tricare.

That is not relevant. Medicare and Medicaid do not cover the full cost of care, whether you claim it is free or claim you have to pay for it.

If the cost of a service is $12,000 a year, and you pay only $1,000.... that's still a burden on government tax payers of $11,000 a year. So saying you have to pay a little, doesn't mean jack.

It doesn't cover Corporate Welfare on iota.

Name the corporate welfare. I dare you.

You are just repeating what the RTwingnutjob talking heads are saying. I read enough of the book to realize that it's a bitch session that blames all on the "Intitlments". It's about the Rich bitching about the Poor. Not one mention of Corporate Welfare at all. Of course not. The Rich stands in line buying as many Politicos as it can for millions while they reap billions and trillions from the various programs that are gifted to them. When the Author (he's in his late 90s now so I don't foresee another book unless ghost written) addresses the whole problem instead of bitching about the poor then I will read his work. Until then, it's just another Rtwingnutjob talking head.

Well yes, because it's fact. I'm repeating fact.

It's that simple dude. You know what the difference between me and you is? I was just as ignorant as you are now, back about 15 years ago. I believed that Social Security was putting together an investment portfolio with my name on it, and I had an account somewhere with a bunch of assets in it, for my benefit when I retire.

I was presented with new information, information backed by empirical fact. The difference between me and you is simply that I didn't stay stupid, because I "Wanted" to believe myths. When I was presented with new facts, I changed my opinion based on the facts.

I didn't just act like a moron and "your facts and evidence are just another Rtwingnutjob talking head! So I'm going to remain stupid for life!"

Everything I told you is clearly documented, and not just documented, it's law. You can go look up the laws, and how they work. There is no trust fund.

Why was there a huge debt ceiling crisis under Obama, if Social Security had trillions of dollars in investments? Why did Obama say, if the debt limit is not raised up, that Social Security checks will have to be cut?

Because there is no trust fund. Doesn't exist. As the book details correctly, the entire trust fund, is nothing more than a filing cabinet in Virginia. That's the law. You can go read the law they passed in 1994, to keep this ruse going.

There are no assets. There are no bank accounts. There is no account with your name on it, with your money in it.

Again... if there was, then how you can you say "We should have an income cap!" Why would we need an income cap? Think about what you yourself are saying..... if there is an account with assets with your name on them.... then why do you need an income cap?

What difference does it make if Bob the Billionaire gets his Social Security or not, if you are getting the money you put in your own account, and he's getting the money he put in his own account?

Do you not even realize the incoherent position that you yourself have promoted on this forum?

There is only one reason you need to try and deny Bob the Billionaire his social security that he paid into just as much as you did..... and that is if there is no trust fund, and there are no assets, and there is no account with your name on it. Then denying other people their social security, will then free up money for your social security.

Of course the moment you do that, there are 100 million people that are poorer than you, that see you as the rich guy, and they'll want to deny your social security, so they can have more. That's how socialism always works, and why every socialist country falls into ruins. Atlas Shrugged is true.

 

[DustyInfinity]

I have a question for democrats like Mac who yearn for a European Nanny State. It is clear there are major differences between countries like Denmark and the USA, size and quality of representation would be the two largest. The argument of whether a Denmark like system is possible in the USA is an interesting one, but one for another time. My question is whether Democrats believe that is the direction people like Pelosi, Schumer, and AOC are going? Do you believe the people representing you are using a Denmark model, or a China model. For those who say of course Democrat leaders are not using China as a model, how can you be sure? Leaders getting boats and multiple houses, and subjects with few or any choices and welfare. Corruption would seem to be a major problem in our system. It already is on both sides of the aisle. How would a giant corrupt government stay on a Denmark path, and not a China one?

 

[sartre play]

I am a 4th generation American, how some other country is run is not my business unless their lobbing bombs or harming us. have zero idea WHY people use other country's to demonstrate how good or bad some other country is as a way to insult other Americans.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Go ahead, we are interested in hearing these wonderful successes.

Please, list the countries.

The USA. The federal government will, within a couple of weeks, be the biggest shareholder in American Airlines. They will also own parts of Southwest, Jet Blue, United, and other airlines. Meantime, they are sending out checks for $1,200 to everybody , as well as propping up private industry with $2.2 trillion dollars, not to mention the billions already given to farmers. In short, Trump makes Karl Marx look like a fiscal conservative.

I agree. Which of your candidates proposes dramatically cutting government spending?

Rigth now, the real question is s which one will NOT increase the government spending at the rate of the Rump. The US will be in serious trouble (before the Virus) by 2025 and if we continued (without the virus) and past the point of no return. Now, enter the 1200 buck and more per citizen check and we have to do something fast. Not only do we need to trim the fat at the Government, it's going to take higher taxes for everyone. Otherwise, the US joins Greece. And the last thing I would care to see is for the EU to call the shots in America like they do in Greece. Rump is NOT the President to go into 2021 with financially.

Great.. which of your candidates will reduce the increase in spending on Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Social Security, and the endless entitlements that make up 3/4ths of the Federal Budget? Which one?

Greece had drastically higher tax rates than the US, and they went bankrupt. Increasing taxes is not the solution, or Greece should be the economic leader of Europe.

Rump is decreasing medicare, Medicaid, SS. And my SS is NOT an entitlement. I paid into that fund for decades and it's MY MONEY. I pay every month for Medicare. I don't qualify for Medicaid since I make too much and don't really miss it anyway. And Medicaid is a State Run program. As for the VA, I am watching my Tricare go to hell in a hand basket these days. Like Medicare, the cost of it is progged to go up in 2021 if Rump get's his way.

Greece made some serious economical blunders. Taxes didn't cover it and the people refused to pay any more tax increases. In affect, Greece was bailed out by the rest of the EU. It's a forgone conclusion that the year 2025 (without that 1200 bucks that just showed up in my account this morning) is the point of no return if the US continues the same path under Rump's guidance. No Economist has had the balls to come out with exactly when the US will be bankrupt or drop to a triple B credit rating (which means no more loans and it's pay as you go). But in 2025, that is exactly what will happen. Not the end of the world but you can definitely see the end of the world from there.

Now, enter the Virus and the Stimulus money. 2025 doesn't change but unless there is a HUGE change somewhere the end is nearer than before. Rump is NOT the brilliant Economist he claims to be. Not to say he hasn't had the brilliant economists available to him, he just ignores them. Time to let the Grownups take over. And NO, I am not saying Biden is a Grownup but he knows and listens to a whole hell of a lot of the grownups.

You paid taxes into the government for decades. It's no more "Your money" than my taxes used to pay for your Social Security, is my money.

Social Security, is a tax... and a welfare payment. It is no different than your Federal gasoline tax, and food stamps. No different than your Federal cell phone tax, and an Obama phone. No different than the estate tax, and government housing for a druggie.

Medicaid is state run? But where is the money coming from?

View attachment 323838

47.6% of the Medicaid budget of states, comes from Federal money.

As for the VA, I am watching my Tricare go to hell in a hand basket these days. Like Medicare, the cost of it is progged to go up in 2021 if Rump get's his way.

So the country can go to hell in a debt crash like Greece... as long as you get what you want? You know everyone else living off the tax payers, says the same thing?

Look you can't have it both ways. You can't complain that Trump is over spending, and then turn around and complain that Trump isn't spending enough.

Now, enter the Virus and the Stimulus money. 2025 doesn't change but unless there is a HUGE change somewhere the end is nearer than before. Rump is NOT the brilliant Economist he claims to be. Not to say he hasn't had the brilliant economists available to him, he just ignores them. Time to let the Grownups take over. And NO, I am not saying Biden is a Grownup but he knows and listens to a whole hell of a lot of the grownups.

Great. We agree. Which candidate would you point to, that wants to cut entitlement spending?

SSI does not go into the general fund. It goes int it's own fund. It's a trust. The other taxes are taxes. SS has never been a tax and that's MY MONEY. I pay into that fund every month even though I do collect it. But my income, part of it still pays SS. I could elect not to pay it month to month. But my Government Retirement still pays SS. But it's not a Tax. It just means that if more people do that, the SS system will last longer. That is, unless the Politicos don't get any greedier than they already are.

You can call it anything you want but I could not have paid a dime into SS and no money would have been waiting for me like it is today. Again, it's not a tax. It's a trust. One trust that your buddies need to stop dipping into when they find themselves overwhelmed through insane spending.

Robot Check

Read the book. Social Security never had a separate fund. It's not a trust. There is on trust. If you were to organize a gang, and go rob the Social Security Trust Fund, you would end up spending more money on gas, than you stole from the Trust fund, because there is no trust fund.

When Obama told you people, that if they didn't raise the debt limit, that Social Security checks were going to be cut, he wasn't lying.

Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3

In CBS News interview, President Obama says Social Security checks may not go out Aug. 3 if no deficit deal is struck

www.cbsnews.com

That was not a lie. There is no money in Social Security. None. Social Security is paid out of general revenue. Social Security taxes go into the General Revenue. That is how social security was setup since FDR.

There is no money waiting for you today.

Listen..... If all the tax payers today, refused to pay Social Security, there would be zero money in social security. There is no money waiting for you.

Our system works identically to Greece's system. That's why when the government went bankrupt, all the pensioners sat outside and wept bitterly because they had nothing.

The only money you have for retirement, guaranteed that is waiting for you, is the money you save and invest.

And let me warn you about something else. If the next generation of tax payers decides they don't want to pay for your retirement, they can take it from you. Unlike your 401K where you can take your investment to court, and demand compensation... you have ZERO legal right to social security. You can go look up the court case from the 1960s. You have no legal right to Social Security. None. That's what the Supreme Court of the US said.

And you want to know why? Because Social Security is an income tax, and a welfare program, just like I said. The court said you have no more of a right to Social Security, than you do a welfare check.

Because that's what Social Security is. By the way FDR himself in court, argued that Social Security was an income tax and welfare system.

This is the truth. These are the facts. Read the book. Learn.

The book isn't correct and never has been. It's a conspiracy writer. So, we just cue the music

If you can prove even one single sentence of that book as a lie, I'd love to see your proof.

Until then, you are just a liar now.

The lie is in your presenting it to make your argument. Your argument fails. No where in that book does it say that there is NO SS fund. But it does talk about those that don't need it. But the problem is, they paid a kings ransom in and get quite a bit of it back. I think he would agree that we need a cap on income when you are drawing SS. But he just complains about other things. But nowhere does he say that there isn't a seperate fund for SS. But he does not call it an entitlement so you assume that's what he means.

He also goes into Medicare and Medicaid. While Medicaid is free, Medicare is not. I pay every month for Plan B since by law, I have to have it to retain my Tricare. I would love to get rid of Medicare Part B and go with a better alternative. But if I never had the option for Medicare, my Tricare would cover almost every dime save anywhere from 175 to 350 bucks a year. Yes, Medicare is an entitlement. And, in case you haven't noticed, Medicaid is controlled by the State more than the Feds regardless of where the money comes from. Medicaid is an entitlement but without it, the really poor would be sent home to die.

Then he goes off on Welfare. Hell, I go off on welfare. And I know there are able bodies that draw welfare. But there is a limit to how long they can do that. Most Able Bodied Workers that draw some form of Welfare are EMPLOYED!. There is no way that the jobs offered to them can make it to a Living Wage. I know BBAs that work retail. I know of one Geologist driving school bus. And they are all eligible for some form of Welfare. But Welfare programs like SNAP needs to be cleaned up. Exactly why would anyone need Energy Drinks and Soft Drinks? There are a lot of things like that including the Cash Draw. Your Author doesn't cover those very well.

Mostly the book is a bitch session trying to get us ready for cuts in many badly needed(and poorly run) programs. It doesn't cover Corporate Welfare on iota. And that's another book that should be written.

Then you didn't read the book. Because he detailed quiet clearly that there is no Social Security Fund. There never was.

Those that don't need it? Since when does "need" determine if you get a retirement?

I have a tons of money in purchased assets that I am have invested into for retirement. When I retire, is my 401K or IRA, or anything else, going to ask me "Do you really need this?".

And here's the other side... is it really a "Social Security Trust Fund", if they can simply determine that you don't "need" it, and therefore you can't have it?

The very fact that you can even discuss the possibility of denying people a return on the money "they paid in" proves conclusively everything I have been saying. Because in any other retirement system, no one could simply decide you didn't need it. The fact you can entertain the idea of confiscating people's retirements because they don't need it, proves it does not really exist.

If you tried to take my private 401K or IRA, I would sue the absolute crap out of you, and bankrupt your butt in court. I have legal rights, to my legal property, and I'll fight you for it until the end of time.

But Social Security, you own nothing. There is no account with your name on it. No money in a bank, and no assets that you own.

He also goes into Medicare and Medicaid. While Medicaid is free, Medicare is not. I pay every month for Plan B since by law, I have to have it to retain my Tricare.

That is not relevant. Medicare and Medicaid do not cover the full cost of care, whether you claim it is free or claim you have to pay for it.

If the cost of a service is $12,000 a year, and you pay only $1,000.... that's still a burden on government tax payers of $11,000 a year. So saying you have to pay a little, doesn't mean jack.

It doesn't cover Corporate Welfare on iota.

Name the corporate welfare. I dare you.

You are just repeating what the RTwingnutjob talking heads are saying. I read enough of the book to realize that it's a bitch session that blames all on the "Intitlments". It's about the Rich bitching about the Poor. Not one mention of Corporate Welfare at all. Of course not. The Rich stands in line buying as many Politicos as it can for millions while they reap billions and trillions from the various programs that are gifted to them. When the Author (he's in his late 90s now so I don't foresee another book unless ghost written) addresses the whole problem instead of bitching about the poor then I will read his work. Until then, it's just another Rtwingnutjob talking head.

Well yes, because it's fact. I'm repeating fact.

It's that simple dude. You know what the difference between me and you is? I was just as ignorant as you are now, back about 15 years ago. I believed that Social Security was putting together an investment portfolio with my name on it, and I had an account somewhere with a bunch of assets in it, for my benefit when I retire.

I was presented with new information, information backed by empirical fact. The difference between me and you is simply that I didn't stay stupid, because I "Wanted" to believe myths. When I was presented with new facts, I changed my opinion based on the facts.

I didn't just act like a moron and "your facts and evidence are just another Rtwingnutjob talking head! So I'm going to remain stupid for life!"

Everything I told you is clearly documented, and not just documented, it's law. You can go look up the laws, and how they work. There is no trust fund.

Why was there a huge debt ceiling crisis under Obama, if Social Security had trillions of dollars in investments? Why did Obama say, if the debt limit is not raised up, that Social Security checks will have to be cut?

Because there is no trust fund. Doesn't exist. As the book details correctly, the entire trust fund, is nothing more than a filing cabinet in Virginia. That's the law. You can go read the law they passed in 1994, to keep this ruse going.

There are no assets. There are no bank accounts. There is no account with your name on it, with your money in it.

Again... if there was, then how you can you say "We should have an income cap!" Why would we need an income cap? Think about what you yourself are saying..... if there is an account with assets with your name on them.... then why do you need an income cap?

What difference does it make if Bob the Billionaire gets his Social Security or not, if you are getting the money you put in your own account, and he's getting the money he put in his own account?

Do you not even realize the incoherent position that you yourself have promoted on this forum?

There is only one reason you need to try and deny Bob the Billionaire his social security that he paid into just as much as you did..... and that is if there is no trust fund, and there are no assets, and there is no account with your name on it. Then denying other people their social security, will then free up money for your social security.

Of course the moment you do that, there are 100 million people that are poorer than you, that see you as the rich guy, and they'll want to deny your social security, so they can have more. That's how socialism always works, and why every socialist country falls into ruins. Atlas Shrugged is true.

Now that you have posted your bitches, does it make you feel better? Funny how they know to the day and dollar when SS runs out of money if there was no attempt at reducing the money out versus the money in. That means there must be a separate fund somewhere to audit. You have been sold a bill of goods by those that wish to rob those funds once again. The fact remains, we can't go on robbing the funds. The way it was setup, the funds would never run out and each generation would contribute so they could have a supplement for retirement once they could no longer work.

But as long as you feel better, I am happy for you. Until then, the Crooks in Congress can keep their grubby fingers off MY MONEY!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have a question for democrats like Mac who yearn for a European Nanny State. It is clear there are major differences between countries like Denmark and the USA, size and quality of representation would be the two largest. The argument of whether a Denmark like system is possible in the USA is an interesting one, but one for another time. My question is whether Democrats believe that is the direction people like Pelosi, Schumer, and AOC are going? Do you believe the people representing you are using a Denmark model, or a China model. For those who say of course Democrat leaders are not using China as a model, how can you be sure? Leaders getting boats and multiple houses, and subjects with few or any choices and welfare. Corruption would seem to be a major problem in our system. It already is on both sides of the aisle. How would a giant corrupt government stay on a Denmark path, and not a China one?

Simple answer. The Public gets the representation they deserve. On both sides of the isle.

 

[Andylusion]

Go ahead, we are interested in hearing these wonderful successes.

Please, list the countries.

The USA. The federal government will, within a couple of weeks, be the biggest shareholder in American Airlines. They will also own parts of Southwest, Jet Blue, United, and other airlines. Meantime, they are sending out checks for $1,200 to everybody , as well as propping up private industry with $2.2 trillion dollars, not to mention the billions already given to farmers. In short, Trump makes Karl Marx look like a fiscal conservative.

I agree. Which of your candidates proposes dramatically cutting government spending?

Rigth now, the real question is s which one will NOT increase the government spending at the rate of the Rump. The US will be in serious trouble (before the Virus) by 2025 and if we continued (without the virus) and past the point of no return. Now, enter the 1200 buck and more per citizen check and we have to do something fast. Not only do we need to trim the fat at the Government, it's going to take higher taxes for everyone. Otherwise, the US joins Greece. And the last thing I would care to see is for the EU to call the shots in America like they do in Greece. Rump is NOT the President to go into 2021 with financially.

Great.. which of your candidates will reduce the increase in spending on Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Social Security, and the endless entitlements that make up 3/4ths of the Federal Budget? Which one?

Greece had drastically higher tax rates than the US, and they went bankrupt. Increasing taxes is not the solution, or Greece should be the economic leader of Europe.

Rump is decreasing medicare, Medicaid, SS. And my SS is NOT an entitlement. I paid into that fund for decades and it's MY MONEY. I pay every month for Medicare. I don't qualify for Medicaid since I make too much and don't really miss it anyway. And Medicaid is a State Run program. As for the VA, I am watching my Tricare go to hell in a hand basket these days. Like Medicare, the cost of it is progged to go up in 2021 if Rump get's his way.

Greece made some serious economical blunders. Taxes didn't cover it and the people refused to pay any more tax increases. In affect, Greece was bailed out by the rest of the EU. It's a forgone conclusion that the year 2025 (without that 1200 bucks that just showed up in my account this morning) is the point of no return if the US continues the same path under Rump's guidance. No Economist has had the balls to come out with exactly when the US will be bankrupt or drop to a triple B credit rating (which means no more loans and it's pay as you go). But in 2025, that is exactly what will happen. Not the end of the world but you can definitely see the end of the world from there.

Now, enter the Virus and the Stimulus money. 2025 doesn't change but unless there is a HUGE change somewhere the end is nearer than before. Rump is NOT the brilliant Economist he claims to be. Not to say he hasn't had the brilliant economists available to him, he just ignores them. Time to let the Grownups take over. And NO, I am not saying Biden is a Grownup but he knows and listens to a whole hell of a lot of the grownups.

You paid taxes into the government for decades. It's no more "Your money" than my taxes used to pay for your Social Security, is my money.

Social Security, is a tax... and a welfare payment. It is no different than your Federal gasoline tax, and food stamps. No different than your Federal cell phone tax, and an Obama phone. No different than the estate tax, and government housing for a druggie.

Medicaid is state run? But where is the money coming from?

View attachment 323838

47.6% of the Medicaid budget of states, comes from Federal money.

As for the VA, I am watching my Tricare go to hell in a hand basket these days. Like Medicare, the cost of it is progged to go up in 2021 if Rump get's his way.

So the country can go to hell in a debt crash like Greece... as long as you get what you want? You know everyone else living off the tax payers, says the same thing?

Look you can't have it both ways. You can't complain that Trump is over spending, and then turn around and complain that Trump isn't spending enough.

Now, enter the Virus and the Stimulus money. 2025 doesn't change but unless there is a HUGE change somewhere the end is nearer than before. Rump is NOT the brilliant Economist he claims to be. Not to say he hasn't had the brilliant economists available to him, he just ignores them. Time to let the Grownups take over. And NO, I am not saying Biden is a Grownup but he knows and listens to a whole hell of a lot of the grownups.

Great. We agree. Which candidate would you point to, that wants to cut entitlement spending?

SSI does not go into the general fund. It goes int it's own fund. It's a trust. The other taxes are taxes. SS has never been a tax and that's MY MONEY. I pay into that fund every month even though I do collect it. But my income, part of it still pays SS. I could elect not to pay it month to month. But my Government Retirement still pays SS. But it's not a Tax. It just means that if more people do that, the SS system will last longer. That is, unless the Politicos don't get any greedier than they already are.

You can call it anything you want but I could not have paid a dime into SS and no money would have been waiting for me like it is today. Again, it's not a tax. It's a trust. One trust that your buddies need to stop dipping into when they find themselves overwhelmed through insane spending.

Robot Check

Read the book. Social Security never had a separate fund. It's not a trust. There is on trust. If you were to organize a gang, and go rob the Social Security Trust Fund, you would end up spending more money on gas, than you stole from the Trust fund, because there is no trust fund.

When Obama told you people, that if they didn't raise the debt limit, that Social Security checks were going to be cut, he wasn't lying.

Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3

In CBS News interview, President Obama says Social Security checks may not go out Aug. 3 if no deficit deal is struck

www.cbsnews.com

That was not a lie. There is no money in Social Security. None. Social Security is paid out of general revenue. Social Security taxes go into the General Revenue. That is how social security was setup since FDR.

There is no money waiting for you today.

Listen..... If all the tax payers today, refused to pay Social Security, there would be zero money in social security. There is no money waiting for you.

Our system works identically to Greece's system. That's why when the government went bankrupt, all the pensioners sat outside and wept bitterly because they had nothing.

The only money you have for retirement, guaranteed that is waiting for you, is the money you save and invest.

And let me warn you about something else. If the next generation of tax payers decides they don't want to pay for your retirement, they can take it from you. Unlike your 401K where you can take your investment to court, and demand compensation... you have ZERO legal right to social security. You can go look up the court case from the 1960s. You have no legal right to Social Security. None. That's what the Supreme Court of the US said.

And you want to know why? Because Social Security is an income tax, and a welfare program, just like I said. The court said you have no more of a right to Social Security, than you do a welfare check.

Because that's what Social Security is. By the way FDR himself in court, argued that Social Security was an income tax and welfare system.

This is the truth. These are the facts. Read the book. Learn.

The book isn't correct and never has been. It's a conspiracy writer. So, we just cue the music

If you can prove even one single sentence of that book as a lie, I'd love to see your proof.

Until then, you are just a liar now.

The lie is in your presenting it to make your argument. Your argument fails. No where in that book does it say that there is NO SS fund. But it does talk about those that don't need it. But the problem is, they paid a kings ransom in and get quite a bit of it back. I think he would agree that we need a cap on income when you are drawing SS. But he just complains about other things. But nowhere does he say that there isn't a seperate fund for SS. But he does not call it an entitlement so you assume that's what he means.

He also goes into Medicare and Medicaid. While Medicaid is free, Medicare is not. I pay every month for Plan B since by law, I have to have it to retain my Tricare. I would love to get rid of Medicare Part B and go with a better alternative. But if I never had the option for Medicare, my Tricare would cover almost every dime save anywhere from 175 to 350 bucks a year. Yes, Medicare is an entitlement. And, in case you haven't noticed, Medicaid is controlled by the State more than the Feds regardless of where the money comes from. Medicaid is an entitlement but without it, the really poor would be sent home to die.

Then he goes off on Welfare. Hell, I go off on welfare. And I know there are able bodies that draw welfare. But there is a limit to how long they can do that. Most Able Bodied Workers that draw some form of Welfare are EMPLOYED!. There is no way that the jobs offered to them can make it to a Living Wage. I know BBAs that work retail. I know of one Geologist driving school bus. And they are all eligible for some form of Welfare. But Welfare programs like SNAP needs to be cleaned up. Exactly why would anyone need Energy Drinks and Soft Drinks? There are a lot of things like that including the Cash Draw. Your Author doesn't cover those very well.

Mostly the book is a bitch session trying to get us ready for cuts in many badly needed(and poorly run) programs. It doesn't cover Corporate Welfare on iota. And that's another book that should be written.

Then you didn't read the book. Because he detailed quiet clearly that there is no Social Security Fund. There never was.

Those that don't need it? Since when does "need" determine if you get a retirement?

I have a tons of money in purchased assets that I am have invested into for retirement. When I retire, is my 401K or IRA, or anything else, going to ask me "Do you really need this?".

And here's the other side... is it really a "Social Security Trust Fund", if they can simply determine that you don't "need" it, and therefore you can't have it?

The very fact that you can even discuss the possibility of denying people a return on the money "they paid in" proves conclusively everything I have been saying. Because in any other retirement system, no one could simply decide you didn't need it. The fact you can entertain the idea of confiscating people's retirements because they don't need it, proves it does not really exist.

If you tried to take my private 401K or IRA, I would sue the absolute crap out of you, and bankrupt your butt in court. I have legal rights, to my legal property, and I'll fight you for it until the end of time.

But Social Security, you own nothing. There is no account with your name on it. No money in a bank, and no assets that you own.

He also goes into Medicare and Medicaid. While Medicaid is free, Medicare is not. I pay every month for Plan B since by law, I have to have it to retain my Tricare.

That is not relevant. Medicare and Medicaid do not cover the full cost of care, whether you claim it is free or claim you have to pay for it.

If the cost of a service is $12,000 a year, and you pay only $1,000.... that's still a burden on government tax payers of $11,000 a year. So saying you have to pay a little, doesn't mean jack.

It doesn't cover Corporate Welfare on iota.

Name the corporate welfare. I dare you.

You are just repeating what the RTwingnutjob talking heads are saying. I read enough of the book to realize that it's a bitch session that blames all on the "Intitlments". It's about the Rich bitching about the Poor. Not one mention of Corporate Welfare at all. Of course not. The Rich stands in line buying as many Politicos as it can for millions while they reap billions and trillions from the various programs that are gifted to them. When the Author (he's in his late 90s now so I don't foresee another book unless ghost written) addresses the whole problem instead of bitching about the poor then I will read his work. Until then, it's just another Rtwingnutjob talking head.

Well yes, because it's fact. I'm repeating fact.

It's that simple dude. You know what the difference between me and you is? I was just as ignorant as you are now, back about 15 years ago. I believed that Social Security was putting together an investment portfolio with my name on it, and I had an account somewhere with a bunch of assets in it, for my benefit when I retire.

I was presented with new information, information backed by empirical fact. The difference between me and you is simply that I didn't stay stupid, because I "Wanted" to believe myths. When I was presented with new facts, I changed my opinion based on the facts.

I didn't just act like a moron and "your facts and evidence are just another Rtwingnutjob talking head! So I'm going to remain stupid for life!"

Everything I told you is clearly documented, and not just documented, it's law. You can go look up the laws, and how they work. There is no trust fund.

Why was there a huge debt ceiling crisis under Obama, if Social Security had trillions of dollars in investments? Why did Obama say, if the debt limit is not raised up, that Social Security checks will have to be cut?

Because there is no trust fund. Doesn't exist. As the book details correctly, the entire trust fund, is nothing more than a filing cabinet in Virginia. That's the law. You can go read the law they passed in 1994, to keep this ruse going.

There are no assets. There are no bank accounts. There is no account with your name on it, with your money in it.

Again... if there was, then how you can you say "We should have an income cap!" Why would we need an income cap? Think about what you yourself are saying..... if there is an account with assets with your name on them.... then why do you need an income cap?

What difference does it make if Bob the Billionaire gets his Social Security or not, if you are getting the money you put in your own account, and he's getting the money he put in his own account?

Do you not even realize the incoherent position that you yourself have promoted on this forum?

There is only one reason you need to try and deny Bob the Billionaire his social security that he paid into just as much as you did..... and that is if there is no trust fund, and there are no assets, and there is no account with your name on it. Then denying other people their social security, will then free up money for your social security.

Of course the moment you do that, there are 100 million people that are poorer than you, that see you as the rich guy, and they'll want to deny your social security, so they can have more. That's how socialism always works, and why every socialist country falls into ruins. Atlas Shrugged is true.

Now that you have posted your bitches, does it make you feel better? Funny how they know to the day and dollar when SS runs out of money if there was no attempt at reducing the money out versus the money in. That means there must be a separate fund somewhere to audit. You have been sold a bill of goods by those that wish to rob those funds once again. The fact remains, we can't go on robbing the funds. The way it was setup, the funds would never run out and each generation would contribute so they could have a supplement for retirement once they could no longer work.

But as long as you feel better, I am happy for you. Until then, the Crooks in Congress can keep their grubby fingers off MY MONEY!

Again, do you not see the logical contradiction in your own statement?

You said "Funny how they know to the day and dollar when SS runs out of money if there was no attempt at reducing the money out versus the money in."

But then you said:

You claim "grubby fingers off my money".

These are mutually exclusive claims. One of them has to be false.

Because think about it... if the money in SS was actually your money... how would it run out of money?

I have a 401K. You know when my 401K will run out of money? Never. Because it's my money. You can't legally take my money. If you did, I would sue the crap out of you, and destroy you in court.

I have an IRA. You know when my IRA will run out of money? Never. Because it's my money. You can't legally take it.

I have bank accounts, and insurance payouts. You know when they will run out of money? Never. Because it's my money.

Do you not see the difference?

If Social Security worked as you claimed, where it was your money in your account, with your name on it, then explain... how would it ever run out of money?

Not possible. The very fact they openly say it will run out of money, proves it doesn't work the way you say.

The only way it is even possible for SS to run out of money, is if it operates exactly how we have been telling you.

"keep their grubby fingers off MY MONEY"

Now I want to address this again. Factually... you are wrong. It's not your money. According to the United States Supreme Court, you do not have any right to Social Security. It is like any other welfare program, and it is no more "your money" than a person demanding a welfare check, says it is "my money".

The Court ruled that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.​

Flemming v. Nestor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Karen M. Tani | Flemming v. Nestor: Anticommunism, the Welfare State, and the Making of "New Property" | Law and History Review, 26.2 | The History Cooperative

web.archive.org

Flemming V Nestor 1960, Supreme Court of the United States, Majority opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan.

"[t]he program is financed through a payroll tax levied on employees in covered employment."

Note: Tax. Not premium payment. Not a contribution. Not an investment. A tax. Like any other tax.

Each contributor's payroll taxes go into the Treasury as "internal-revenue collections"

Note: Goes to the US Treasury, like any other tax payment. Goes to the same place as all revenue collected by the government.

Nothing akin to individual bank accounts exists. In other words Social Security was not like commercial insurance, where one's benefits were entirely dependent on contractual premium payments, nor could the "noncontractual interest" of a covered employee be analogized to that of the holder of an annuity. The annuity holder has a firm entitlement; the covered employee something less.

Note: Nothing like an individual bank account exists. SS is not like commercial insurance, where there is a contractual premium, nor contractual interest, nor like an annuity where the holder has a firm entitlement.

Conclusion: Let's boil all this down.

In 1960s, they were admitting that there was no fund, no bank accounts, no assets, no contract, no legal rights to social security.

In the Supreme Court of this country, they said openly and directly, money is taxed from workers, just like any other tax. That money is given to the Federal Government through the US Treasury, like any other revenue. And it is spent.

And you have no more of a right to that money, than you do food stamps, or welfare.

Bottom line Statement "MY MONEY!" = False. False statement. Your money was taxed.... and spent.... and is gone. You have zero right to social security. You only get it, because the working people who are paying the taxes to fund Social Security allow you to have it. And the moment workers get tired of paying high taxes to fund your social security.... Greece will happen, and you will be sitting outside a bank crying like those pensioners in Greece.

You said:
SS runs out of money if there was no attempt at reducing the money out versus the money in. That means there must be a separate fund somewhere to audit.

Well.... yes.... there is a separate fund somewhere.... it's called borrowing. The US debt, is the separate fund.

Again... this is why Obama said, if the debt limit was not raised, that Social Security checks would be cut.

Because there is no money in Social Security, no assets that can be sold. So the location of other source of money.... is US borrowing. That is the other "fund".

This is also why they have quietly been pushing to increase revenue by allowing Social Security income to be taxed, and they have been pushing to increase the retirement age, to reduce Social Security expenses.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have a question for democrats like Mac who yearn for a European Nanny State. It is clear there are major differences between countries like Denmark and the USA, size and quality of representation would be the two largest. The argument of whether a Denmark like system is possible in the USA is an interesting one, but one for another time. My question is whether Democrats believe that is the direction people like Pelosi, Schumer, and AOC are going? Do you believe the people representing you are using a Denmark model, or a China model. For those who say of course Democrat leaders are not using China as a model, how can you be sure? Leaders getting boats and multiple houses, and subjects with few or any choices and welfare. Corruption would seem to be a major problem in our system. It already is on both sides of the aisle. How would a giant corrupt government stay on a Denmark path, and not a China one?

Very well put.
Thank you.