Social Security And Medicare Should Not Be Cut

Do away with Medicare and Social Security.

First social security was supposed to pay for its self

The money you paid into Social Security was to be invested by the government to pay for the system.
The problem is the government found that they could rob the Social Security system money when they needed it and not pay it back.
www.examiner.com...
www.network-democracy.org...
They have been doing it since the start of the Social Security system and it finely is bankrupting the system.

Medicare is being robbed by fraud and abuse by doctors and medical suppliers.
Abuses of Medicaid eat up at least 10 percent of the program’s total cost nationwide a waste of $30 billion a year.

I have bought medical equipment like TENS units($10) Cpap units($20)(i now have spare units because i use both) and have also got Electrical bone growth stimulators and IV pumps at the local thrift stores in brand new condition.
Likely medicare payed for them.
I buy medical equipment for $10 or less and donate them to the local fire department i use to belong to for there medical equipment loaner program. and i get a tax break based on new cost.

Do away with Medicare and Social Security. AARP is a big voting block and any politician that tried to do away with medicare or social security they would have to deal with the the AARP.

reply to post by St Udio


That's some gall, telling me that I'm the one cherry picking information.

That aside, I don't really care if it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The programs are insolvent ponzi schemes that require the looting by force of the next generation of children.

The old people are using the power of government to hold a gun to the heads of their own children while they steal 15% of their pay for life.

God only asks for 10%.

Two programs, 15% of your pay, taken at the point of a gun.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by St Udio

 

... The programs are insolvent ponzi schemes that require the looting by force of the next generation of children.

The old people are using the power of government to hold a gun to the heads of their own children while they steal 15% of their pay for life.


Two programs, 15% of your pay, taken at the point of a gun.

the SS program is in its present situation because of Congress raiding the piles of accrued money...
now i quite agree that the set up of the SS system could not in the academic sense continued
for an infinite ammount of time...

some disaster (plagues, war, cosmic event, sterilization of the masses) would eventually arise
where by 14 workers would not be around to support the single SS recipient.

many causes could disrupt the ratio requirement, some i pointed out above, but what was not
in the cards from the inception of the SS system was the raiding of the SS funds by the Congress'

...If the SS funds would have been earning interest like any other pension fund...the anticipated demise
would be forestalled by generations.

next off... Government workers are opted out of the mandantory Social Security system you hold
is a millstone around every citizens and their childrens' necks....

OK... i won't call it 'cherry picking' lets just say it's SPIN


thanks for your interest

reply to post by St Udio


It's not spin.

The case you are making is spin.

I am presenting the unvarnished naked truth about these programs.

Further, we know these programs are bad because they necessarily require the use of violent force.

In the private market, a company must produce goods and services that the public is willing to pay for voluntarily. If the company can't do so, it will eventually go out of business.

Given that we know this, it becomes clear that SS and Medicare are bad programs, because if they were actually good investments, people would not need to have a gun pointed at them in order to get them to participate.

Originally posted by Boomer1941
Myself like many have paid thousands of dollars of hard earned money into Social Security for decades, we've counted on this. Congress over the years has used SS for a slush fund borrowing and spending recklessly on other without paying back. If there are any cutbacks they better start with every elected official and government employee. What makes me absolutely sick is what they are paying Postal Employees, how much education does it take to deliver mail or drive a truck?

Yes, I am quite aware of this. A Trust is not to be "borrowed from," especially by a government that has not power over the Trust, is not the Trustee of the Trust, nor the Beneficiary of the Trust. I say everyone, every committee, every console who "borrowed" money for any reason whatsoever, should be MADE TO PAY IT ALL BACK! Case in point. You have a rich aunt who dies and leaves you a lot of money. she places the money in a Trust for you. when you get to be a certain age, you are then Trustee, and can do what you want with it. So one day it's your birthday, and you go to the bank, who says, "sorry, but we fell on hard times, and was forced to borrow from your Trust." "How much is left," you say, "Nothing," they say back.. Do you all see now? We American workers paid into a Trust that has been pirated and raided to the max, to pay for wars, not of We the People's design or desire. Meanwhile the Fat Cats dine at the Ritz and decide who they will tax next to pay for their extravagant lifestyles. Can anyone tell me what is fair about this?
Some people refer to the bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund as "worthless IOU's." This characterization is inaccurate. The Bonds in the Trust Fund are as real as any U.S. Savings Bond that you might happen to own. The Social Security program loaned this money to the Federal Government and has a legal right to receive it back with interest.
The key to keeping this straight in your head is to be aware of the following facts:
1. The Social Security program levies its own taxes. (FICA)

2. The finances of the Social Security program are separated by law from the rest of the federal government.

UNIFORM COMMON TRUST FUND ACT

PURPOSE:
A common trust fund is a group of securities set aside by a trustee for investment by two or more trusts operated by the same trustee. The purposes of such a common or joint investment fund are to diversify the investments of the several trusts and thus spread the risk of loss, and to make it easy to invest any amount of trust funds quickly and with a small amount of trouble. This act is a simple enabling statute which will allow banks and trust companies to set up one or more common trust funds composed entirely of legal trusts investments for its fiduciary funds.

ORIGIN:
Completed by the Uniform Law Commissioners in 1938, and amended in 1952.

ENDORSED BY:
American Bar Association

source

reply to post by autowrench


It is not a trust, its a violent looting scheme.

A trust is a legal title used by the private sector to manage property rights.

No where in the legal definition of a trust does it say violent looting of the public is involved.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by autowrench

 

It is not a trust, its a violent looting scheme.

A trust is a legal title used by the private sector to manage property rights.

No where in the legal definition of a trust does it say violent looting of the public is involved.

edit on 12-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

My point exactly. The Social Security Trust fund has been looted, a crime has been committed. What happens to criminals in America, especially those who commit a fraud and rip off innocent people in the process. The American government, if you can still call it that, owes the American People more money than there is in the World. They can never pay it all back to us. But I happen to think [their] vast Empires should be seized outright by the Congress. I am talking about the Central Bank, Goldman Sachs in specific, and the Federal Reserve Bank and it's many centralized banking concerns and loan companies. Read your law, people, only the United States Treasury has the right to "coin money" for "all debts, public and private."

reply to post by autowrench


I agree.

A crime has been committed.

Violence against the innocent is always a crime in my book.

Fiat money requires legal tender laws, which also require violence against the innocent.

Central banks which issue fiat money require a monopoly grant from government, which also requires the use of violence to prevent competition.

Violence begets violence.


From fiat currency, to legal tender, to central banks, to ponzi schemes - all at the point of a gun.

Our entire monetary system and government is predicated on violent theft at the point of a gun.

ya know, most of your objections (violence at gunpoint) and all that....
well, I don't see how, if it's true in relation to social security, then it's true with all taxes....
could you explain the difference you are seeing....
do you view all taxes as violence at gunpoint??

as far as social security goes....
it is not broke, not financially, and probably not in it's policies, purpose, procedures ect...ya, it might need a few changes, but it is not broke!!
what is broke, both financially, in just about every other way is the federal govt and many state governments!
so, I would like to put it as plain as I possibly can to you!
You can do whatever you want to social security and in the end, you will still have a broken system...because it's not social security that is the problem! It's just being used as a distraction, by those who are running the show...because they don't want you to actually expect them to change their procedures and policies, because to put it bluntly...they are making way too much money for themselves and their friends the way it is!
Your violence at gunpoint, if that is how you view it will still go on...and you'll have done nothing really to fix the situation.

Originally posted by dawnstar

do you view all taxes as violence at gunpoint??

I'll save him the time in answering by saying yes, he does. Because fundamentally, by the definition and procedure in which taxes are gained and by the definition of what warrants violence (to violate), it is violent and ultimately it is done at gun point.

They have already started taking monies out. My mother lost over 200. dollars in her social security check last month and this is what is exspected to happen to everyone, only the more you get, the more they take % of your check. What cha gonna do, what cha gonna do, when they come for you. Bad boys , bad boys.

Oh and by the way, thats 200 dollars out of every check. They just issue you a smaller check a month.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by calstorm

 

Liberals hate private charity because it robs the government of dependent voters. They hate it. Everything liberals do destroys incentives for people to donate to private charity. - everything.

Every time government creates a program that was once handled by private charity, it puts that sector of charities out of work.

Every time government violently loots more money from the private sector, it steals money from the pockets of charities.

edit on 11-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

IT may FEEL good to assign liberals with the motives you have, but it is as Rand pushed across; actually about Altruism. I do not know one Liberal who thinks about it the way you put it, in fact that is the way you see it.
For an intelligent bloke you sure are woefully retarded when it comes to understanding your political enemy,
time and time again you highlight it. The truth is fairly straight forward, WE do not want other Americans to starve or be homeless - wether or not this will happen is not what I am conveying, but until you understand the motivation you will never truly GET it.

I get yearly from social security how much I have put in every year and how much I will supposedly get when I retire.

If the government come out and says that social security that I have documentation that I paid into is no longer there because they tapped into it for a 100 dollar hammers and every other expense under the sun...

I will refuse to pay taxes until we are even....

Theft is theft.

reply to post by SpectreDC


well, the we must be a rather violent species, since taxes have been around probably longer than prostitution has been. to not have taxes means no gov't, no standing militiary, no roads, no schools or universities, no airports, no police, no fire department, no president, no elected representatives, no congress, no treaties with other nations,....heck I put it as bluntly as I can....
no civilization!
oh, and um.....no computers, since the first computers were created by the military....funded by taxdollars....
no teflon either, or tang......or the other neat little gadgets we get from the gov't research that's related to defense, space, ect.
here's your bow, here's your arrows, here's your little grass hut....some seeds, have fun!

Originally posted by mnemeth1


Liberals hate private charity because it robs the government of dependent voters. They hate it. Everything liberals do destroys incentives for people to donate to private charity. - everything.

Every time government creates a program that was once handled by private charity, it puts that sector of charities out of work.

Every time government violently loots more money from the private sector, it steals money from the pockets of charities.

edit on 11-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Businesses love the social programs because it feeds and shelters their employees, so they don't have to pay them a decent wage....the taxpayers will keep them alive! So, they can have more profit, more money to hand out to the select few at the top in the form a insane salaries and perks...
or, if they are in the business of renting apts, providing medical care, producing the necessities of life, well......they can charge a much higher price, and they will get it, since the gov't will ensure that their lower paid employees will have the food stamps, the rent vouchers, the medical care that they need!

charity didn't work, if had worked, the gov't would have never have had the reason to start these programs to begin with! you want to know just how good charity would work these days, read through the threads here, people are unemployes, because the don't want to work.....single moms are just laying around the house all day, not doing nothing, guys shouldn't have to pay child support, they were tricked into having the kid, and on an on and on...
if the guys don't even want to support their own kids, I have little faith that they are gonna be donating to a charity group to help anyone elses.....
and as far as the charity groups go, many of them are collecting the majority of the funds being giving to them and putting them into fat paychecks for themselves with only a small amount going to the people who actually need it!

southasia.oneworld.net...
is this charity at work???

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by St Udio

 

That aside, I don't really care if it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The programs are insolvent ponzi schemes that require the looting by force of the next generation of children.

The old people are using the power of government to hold a gun to the heads of their own children while they steal 15% of their pay for life.[\quote]

I am one of your "old" people. You are complaining that I am stealing 15% of your wages so therefore you cannot save for your own retirement. Well....guess what? All of my working life 15% of my wages were taken from me FOR MY retirement. So, nothing left to "save". I was a poor working woman. Yep.. now you call it welfare that I am receiving. Now you are saying forget all those "old" people and stop stealing your money.

From your viewpoint I guess you would probably say something like, "tough luck". I do agree this "ponzi" scheme is not working now, so why don't you come up with something that will give us "old" people back our money that was stolen from us so that we can live out our lives. Or perhaps you think that is also a bad idea.

Mahree

reply to post by Mahree

oh.....depending on how old you are......
you might not even exist!! since it wasn't till those evil feminist came on the scene and screwed things up in the 60's and 70's....that us women were out there working!!!

I got a feeling you might be a little older than me....can I ask you a question....
how many people did you know through you life that just didn't work, (outside of the stay at home housewifes) and collected checks from the gov't?
I know so many younger women now days, who are single moms, kids from two or three different fathers...collecting the dough...and well, the younger men, they seem to be just as fickle....they seem to be jumping from one of these women, to the next....shhh, don't tell anyone......
from what I've seen there's alot of the younger generation that really can't complain that much about them taking that 15% from their paycheck...because they aren't earning a paycheck!!! and the money that is being used to take care of them, to take care of their kids, well, that is coming out of those social security funds!