Barack Obama, our next President

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ... Full Story
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#955142 Jul 27, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I say eliminate Social Security & Medicare now since the Pseudo Liberal Warren SCOTUS ruled in 1960 in the case of Flemming V Nestor that Individuals have no rights to Social Security and it is the same Medicare which are based on a tax besides the 1937 SCOTUS ruling stated that the Social Security Tax is just a tax like any other Tax and the Federal Government is free to spend it anyway the Federal Government wishes which why there has never been a Social Security Trust Fund just on paper as an accounting practice which Clinton admitted in his 2000 Budget which is one thing I will give Bill Clinton Credit for and he wasnt lying.
The obam admin would be OWING ALOT OF PEOPLE, that have worked and PAID alot into it over YEARS and YEARS.

So how about they just CAP, CURB and maybe even Cut some of it to ONLY 18 and over sectors- that should reduce some of dar fwee montly givverment payouts and shore it up a little for the ones that DID!!
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#955143 Jul 27, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>No there is not and never has been a Social Security Trust Fund since Social Security was started which it is based on a Ponzi Scheme that is based on pay as you go besides the Federal Government Can spend the Social Security Tax anyway the Federal Government wants as stated in the SCOTUS case of Helvering v. Davis established in 1937 which FDR was spending it and FDR did and remember when the Federal Government has no more money there is no more Social Security because its not a Trust Fund.
Below explains the logic why there is no Social Security Trust Fund from the Article link below
Why the Social Security Trust Fund Differs from Real Trust Funds. Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998:
When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another.
Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works
As political leaders debate how best to fix Social Security, many policymakers are focusing on the wrong issue. Their sole concern seems to be the date when the Social Security retirement and survivors trust fund will run out of its paper assets. This mistaken emphasis misses the fundamental point about Social Security's problems: There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any.
The Social Security trust fund is merely an accounting device filled with IOUs that future taxpayers must repay. Far too soon, payroll taxes will be insufficient to pay all of the promised benefits. Unless Congress promptly takes action, taxpayers will have to pump hundreds of billions of additional tax dollars into Social Security to pay the promised benefits.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004...
Social Security, Ponzi Schemes,
and the Need for Reform
by Michael Tanner
Pg12 of the PDF As the Clinton administration’s Fiscal Year 2000 Budget explained it
However, in reality, the Social Security Trust Fund is not an asset that can be used to pay benefits. As the Clinton administration’s Fiscal Year 2000 Budget explained it:
These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures — but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.
Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will
have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.
The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs...
We just went over that.

And STILL--the government will OWING ALOT OF PEOPLE-that WORKED and contributed over A LOT of years, they're hard earned dollars-BACK TO THEM.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#955144 Jul 27, 2013
TSM wrote:
<quoted text>
Let’s not forget about Joe Lieberman He had to switch Party’s!!
That is still one of the BEST examples of TRUE DEMOCRACY in action!!

The INDEPENDENT VOTERS And Candiadates of America!

Heck YA!
:-)
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#955145 Jul 27, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "wrongful termination" when most business employees are "employees at will."
Government employment conditions are an anachronism that need to be changed. If you screw up, you're history.
I always found that warped entitleMENTALed assumption on workers UI to be the biggest one to have raise an eyebrow at.

Being as EMPLOYERS pay that (and ONLY employers) as a precautionary economic measure.

I've heard some entitleMENTAL cases carry on in abject ignorance, as if UI was out of of employee pockets.

The TOXIC poison of the cluelessness of libuhrulTICS, entitleMENTAL diseases and socio-ILLogical disorders!!

Since: May 11

Hustontown, PA

#955146 Jul 27, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>No there is not and never has been a Social Security Trust Fund since Social Security was started which it is based on a Ponzi Scheme that is based on pay as you go besides the Federal Government Can spend the Social Security Tax anyway the Federal Government wants as stated in the SCOTUS case of Helvering v. Davis established in 1937 which FDR was spending it and FDR did and remember when the Federal Government has no more money there is no more Social Security because its not a Trust Fund.
Below explains the logic why there is no Social Security Trust Fund from the Article link below
Why the Social Security Trust Fund Differs from Real Trust Funds. Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998:
When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another.
Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works
As political leaders debate how best to fix Social Security, many policymakers are focusing on the wrong issue. Their sole concern seems to be the date when the Social Security retirement and survivors trust fund will run out of its paper assets. This mistaken emphasis misses the fundamental point about Social Security's problems: There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any.
The Social Security trust fund is merely an accounting device filled with IOUs that future taxpayers must repay. Far too soon, payroll taxes will be insufficient to pay all of the promised benefits. Unless Congress promptly takes action, taxpayers will have to pump hundreds of billions of additional tax dollars into Social Security to pay the promised benefits.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004...
Social Security, Ponzi Schemes,
and the Need for Reform
by Michael Tanner
Pg12 of the PDF As the Clinton administration’s Fiscal Year 2000 Budget explained it
However, in reality, the Social Security Trust Fund is not an asset that can be used to pay benefits. As the Clinton administration’s Fiscal Year 2000 Budget explained it:
These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures — but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.
Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will
have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.
The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs...
Blah Blah Blah.

The fund loans its excess to the Federal Government under a law signed by Reagan.

It does not mea that the fund does not exist.

And you still think your bank has a spot in a box with your money in it.

If not for the IOUs, that money would have had to been borrowed from other sources.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#955147 Jul 27, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
BS. No trust fund. No guarantee of benefits.
exactly and why there is such an interest by the Federal Government to confiscate 401k and private Pension just like the Federal Government did under FDR with the Railroad Pensions which to this day still has control and they want to dump into Social Security which is actually the US Treasury so the Federal Goverment can spend it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#955149 Jul 27, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
The obam admin would be OWING ALOT OF PEOPLE, that have worked and PAID alot into it over YEARS and YEARS.
So how about they just CAP, CURB and maybe even Cut some of it to ONLY 18 and over sectors- that should reduce some of dar fwee montly givverment payouts and shore it up a little for the ones that DID!!
Federal Government owes nothing to people is the point and it has been that way since 1960 when Pseudo Liberal SCOTUS ruled in the case of Flemming V Nestor and it is legal.

Is There a Right to Social Security?

By Michael D. Tanner

November 25, 1998

You worked hard your whole life and paid thousands of dollars in Social Security taxes. Now it’s time to retire. You’re legally entitled to Social Security benefits, right? Wrong. There is no legal right to Social Security, and that is one of the considerations that may decide the coming debate over Social Security reform.

Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.

Ephram Nestor was a Bulgarian immigrant who came to the United States in 1918 and paid Social Security taxes from 1936, the year the system began operating, until he retired in 1955. A year after he retired, Nestor was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party in the 1930s. In 1954 Congress had passed a law saying that any person deported from the United States should lose his Social Security benefits. Accordingly, Nestor’s $55.60 per month Social Security checks were stopped. Nestor sued, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits.

The Supreme Court disagreed, saying “To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.” The Court went on to say,“It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/i...

“My Life Is A Shell Game”

Since: May 07

Lapeer, MI

#955150 Jul 27, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>No there is not and never has been a Social Security Trust Fund since Social Security was started which it is based on a Ponzi Scheme that is based on pay as you go besides the Federal Government Can spend the Social Security Tax anyway the Federal Government wants as stated in the SCOTUS case of Helvering v. Davis established in 1937 which FDR was spending it and FDR did and remember when the Federal Government has no more money there is no more Social Security because its not a Trust Fund.
Below explains the logic why there is no Social Security Trust Fund from the Article link below
Why the Social Security Trust Fund Differs from Real Trust Funds. Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998:
When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another.
Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works
As political leaders debate how best to fix Social Security, many policymakers are focusing on the wrong issue. Their sole concern seems to be the date when the Social Security retirement and survivors trust fund will run out of its paper assets. This mistaken emphasis misses the fundamental point about Social Security's problems: There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any.
The Social Security trust fund is merely an accounting device filled with IOUs that future taxpayers must repay. Far too soon, payroll taxes will be insufficient to pay all of the promised benefits. Unless Congress promptly takes action, taxpayers will have to pump hundreds of billions of additional tax dollars into Social Security to pay the promised benefits.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004...
Social Security, Ponzi Schemes,
and the Need for Reform
by Michael Tanner
Pg12 of the PDF As the Clinton administration’s Fiscal Year 2000 Budget explained it
However, in reality, the Social Security Trust Fund is not an asset that can be used to pay benefits. As the Clinton administration’s Fiscal Year 2000 Budget explained it:
These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures — but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.
Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will
have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.
The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs...
Dumb Dave makes it up as he goes. Lots of bluff and bluster but no head on his shoulders.

He'd make a good used car salesman or Dog Catcher.

“My Life Is A Shell Game”

Since: May 07

Lapeer, MI

#955152 Jul 27, 2013
IRS Workers Want Out of Obamacare: http://tinyurl.com/l7zqzht

Those same folks who will be screwing you around with Obamacare, don't want Obamacare for themselves.

Will the Magic Negro be enlisted in Obamacare?
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#955153 Jul 27, 2013
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumb Dave makes it up as he goes. Lots of bluff and bluster but no head on his shoulders.
He'd make a good used car salesman or Dog Catcher.
Dumb Dave is obviously someone who was not successful in life. A lot of problems upstairs with that dude.
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#955154 Jul 27, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Andy you're foreign scum, son!
Quit humping my leg, libtard.
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#955155 Jul 27, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text> Blah Blah Blah.
The fund loans its excess to the Federal Government under a law signed by Reagan.
It does not mea that the fund does not exist.
And you still think your bank has a spot in a box with your money in it.
If not for the IOUs, that money would have had to been borrowed from other sources.
Hey Dumb Dave.

What does the word "Abandon" mean?
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#955156 Jul 27, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text> WTF that Obamacare have to do with the free phones? You really get dumber eery day.
Hey Dumb Dave. What is welfare for losers like you gone wild?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#955157 Jul 27, 2013
Tits Magee wrote:
Je ne suis pas sûr, ma douce, si les règles d'engagement Topix permettez-moi de vous séduire en français? Espérons-le.
Vous savez que j'ai toujours admiré votre créativité littéraire. Tout comme Satre, vous êtes considéré comme scandeloous par beaucoup. Vous devriez être fier.
Tits Magee

Paris, France

#955158 Jul 27, 2013
Je suis fier, mais d'abord je suis un homme, ce qui est différent.
Tits Magee

Paris, France

#955159 Jul 27, 2013
Un jour, tu seras juste une femme avec moi, c'est beaucoup plus simple que le détour que vous prenez.
Tits Magee

Paris, France

#955160 Jul 27, 2013
Nous étions les premiers et only alliés, rappelez-vous ...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#955161 Jul 27, 2013
Tits Magee wrote:
Je suis fier, mais d'abord je suis un homme, ce qui est différent.
here is what it translates into English

"I am proud, but first I am a man, which is different."

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#955162 Jul 27, 2013
Tits Magee wrote:
Un jour, tu seras juste une femme avec moi, c'est beaucoup plus simple que le détour que vous prenez.
here is what it translates into English

"One day you'll just be a woman with me, it's much easier than taking the detour."

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#955163 Jul 27, 2013
Tits Magee wrote:
Nous étions les premiers et only alliés, rappelez-vous ...
here is what it translates into English

"We were the first and only allies, remember ..."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 23 min Patriot AKA Bozo 47,600
Abby 10-30 24 min edogxxx 25
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 30 min RACE 98,568
Amy 10-31 40 min RACE 3
Abby 10-31 44 min loose cannon 9
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 45 min Cheftell 68,686
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Religionthebiglie 50,787
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Learn to Read 179,685

High Wind Warning for Cook County was issued at October 31 at 9:05AM CDT

Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]