Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Social Security Bomb, Must Read!

page: 2
67
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Wow i can't believe yall are just now hearing about this, there was an article in the Huffpost months ago.




posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
doesn't any one remember Clintons years of prosperity?
he did just what the OP said...
thats were the money came from
and then he left a"surplus" for Bush to blow...



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I am on SS Disability as is my partner. Our medication
and health care is thru Medcaid. As soon as I heard
the statement Obama made I felt anxiety and we decided
to pay the utilities and get extra staple type foods in
case we don't get our checks. One thing that is in our favor
is that our home is paid for, no mortgage or rent (others
do have payments taken from their check for housing). I
am trying to count my blessings and hope for the best
outcome for all people this concerns. What a terrible
thing to freighten the elderly and disabled - I hope
is was necessary



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by crazydaisy
 


Let's hope everything turns out ok. Good thinking on your part to stock up just in case



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Instead of making the elderly and disabled suffer for their obvious problems with budgeting and spending money wisely, why don't they stop sending some of those billions to other countries? Or maybe they could think about buying a few less $10,000 screwdrivers and $20,000 toilet seats.

My father paid into SS his entire life and he now receives a SS check for a grand total of about $425 per month. So by not sending this measly little $425 check, now how is that going to help with the government's deficit of TRILLIONS?



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
All I know is I have documentation showing I have given them "X" amount of dollars...

When they come to me saying they are not going to pay me back I will sue them.

If that fails then I will just file exempt from my taxes since they owe me money they misappropriated.

Funny thing is Social Security was started on a voluntary involvement... now you are mandated to contribute to a fund they just piss away.

Income tax is also "voluntary" but tell that to the I.R.S.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
I should be astonished that there is no public out-cry, and mass protests over this.

Seems either people are to apathetic (In the case of the young) or unable to (Due to physical hardship like disability or age).

It is absolutely assinine that he's threatening US, the people who he works for. It's not OUR fault that THEY cannot or will not agree on a budget increase.

Tho of us on SS, SSDI, and SSI, don't get much at all, it's less then some state's minimum wage, higer then others, depending on what you get. It's merely "existence money". We don't eat steak or shrimp, we don't buy fancy phones or computers, we don't drive brand new cars, and get a new one every couple years.. It's all spent on bare essentials, rent (which sucks most of it right there), toilet paper, and cheap food and bare eseential utilities.

If checks don't come out in August, it will get very ugly, very fast for a lot of us who do not have the luxory of owning our own homes.

I tend to be reminded of Agenda 21, in this regard.. How to kill off a lot of folks would be by killing off any of the programs that sustain those of us too proud and stubborn to just simply die off, such an inconvience for the money-hungry bankers and government officials.

How sad we've become, as a people in this, once great country.
How infuriating, and disgusting it is to see whats going on, when everyone else around is content as long as their own status quo is allowed to perpetuate.

We all are doomed.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
what do yu mean who wouldve thought... woww lol @ ppl for trsuting government and what they tell you



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by morder1
The collateral was you, me, our children, and our childrens children... we were all pledged against the debt of the govt through Social Security...

Scary for sure...


Absolutely and quite literally correct..
Social (people) Security (collatteral), your birth certificate is a stock certificate and our entire monetary system is backed by nothing else than the assumption that you and everybody else will work until you can't work anymore. Rosenfel... er Rosevelt knew this quite well when he worked us up on a 'New Deal' and that system has been in the works since 1865.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by crazydaisy
 





What a terrible
thing to freighten the elderly and disabled - I hope
is was necessary


It is terrible, but the elderly and disabled are the easiest to target because they are so disenfranchised from the system. They have no one protecting their interests and no voice in the debate. For a country with so much wealth, it's sad state of affairs that it cares little for the weak or old. Social Darwinism in a Christian nation.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
I found this particularly fascinating, the extent to which the Republican party is provoking this crisis:

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 





That was a big slip of the tongue by the President... it should backfire in his face if the retirees in this country still remember Social Security as being "protected"... hopefully most are scratching their heads wondering "WTF did he just say?" or they are thinking that he's just a politician playing the game. ....


S&F

Most of us "Old Timers" remember that Under the [ORIGINIAL cv] 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added. (from a government Website on SS)

For this reason many think of SS as a government "Pension Fund" since that is what it was original "sold" as.

Most of us are familiar with pension plans and trusts (and wills:lol
. We are aware that pensions are paid by corporations into a completely separate fund for the benefit of their workers. The fund being a separate entity from the corporation is not subject to confiscation during bankruptcy. Because it is not a corporate "asset" it can not be used as "general funds/assets" by the corporation.


Noun 1. pension fund - a fund reserved to pay workers' pensions when they retire from service.

superannuation fund,
monetary fund - a reserve of money set aside for some purpose

2. pension fund - a financial institution that collects regular contributions from employers to provide retirement income for employees.
nondepository financial institution - a financial institution that funds their investment activities from the sale of securities or insurance. www.thefreedictionary.com...




These are some interesting tidbits from the Government Social Security website:


Q23: Has Social Security ever been financed by general tax revenues?

A: Not to any significant extent. (See detailed explanation.)
Q24: How much has Social Security paid out since it started?

A: From 1937 (when the first payments were made) through 2009 the Social Security program has expended $11.3 trillion.

(See detailed tables of annual Social Security payments 1937-2008.) (See also detail for Q26)

Q25: How much has Social Security taken in taxes and other income since it started?

A: From 1937 (when taxes were first collected) through 2009 the Social Security program has received $13.8 trillion in income.

Q26: Has Social Security always taken in more money each year than it needed to pay benefits?

A: No. So far there have been 11 years in which the Social Security program did not take enough in FICA taxes to pay the current year's benefits. During these years, Trust Fund bonds in the amount of about $24 billion made up the difference.

Q27: Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?



A: Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. In practice, most of the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are of the "special obligation" type. (See additional explanation from SSA's Office of the Actuary.) The Trust Funds earn interest which is set at the average market yield on long-term Treasury securities. Interest earnings on the invested assets of the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds were $55.5 billion in calendar year 1999. This represented an effective annual interest rate of 6.9 percent. The Trust Funds have earned interest in every year since the program began. More detailed information on the Trust Fund investments can be found in the Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees and on the Actuary's webpages concerning the Investment Transactions and Investment Holdings of the Trust Funds.



www.socialsecurity.gov


SEEM like someone some where is lying through there teeth. Either it is a general tax as told to the Courts or it is a "Special Tax" handled as a separate fund and secured as "the Social Security Trust Fund"


trust fund legal definition
trust fund n. the principal (called the corpus) of a trust made up of its assets and, sometimes, accumulated profits.

trust n. A relationship created at the direction of an individual, in which one or more persons hold the individual's property subject to certain duties to use and protect it for the benefit of others.

Individuals may control the distribution of their property during their lives or after their deaths through the use of a trust. There are many types of trusts and many purposes for their creation. A trust may be created for the financial benefit of the person creating the trust, a surviving spouse or minor children, or a charitable purpose. Though a variety of trusts are permitted by law, trust arrangements that are attempts to evade creditors or lawful responsibilities will be declared void by the courts.

The law of trusts is voluminous and often complicated, but generally it is concerned with whether a trust has been created, whether it is a public or private trust, whether it is legal, and whether the trustee has lawfully managed the trust and trust property.....


As I said Star and Flag. Seems like you just dug up a smelly body the politicians thought they had buried!



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by crazydaisy
I am on SS Disability as is my partner. Our medication
and health care is thru Medcaid. As soon as I heard
the statement Obama made I felt anxiety and we decided
to pay the utilities and get extra staple type foods in
case we don't get our checks. One thing that is in our favor
is that our home is paid for, no mortgage or rent (others
do have payments taken from their check for housing). I
am trying to count my blessings and hope for the best
outcome for all people this concerns. What a terrible
thing to freighten the elderly and disabled - I hope
is was necessary

Though I was pretty young at the time, I remember talks of filing cabinets full of I.o.u.'s to social security. That it was gone, in the late 80s early 90s. And I do remember there being a surplus as well. To the point that the first thing Bush did was mail everyone a check for 600.00.

Anyone remember what they spent that money on?
Would have been better left alone, for SS.
edit on 15-7-2011 by Wetpaint72 because: Sorry I accidentally replied to the wrong post.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


I may be wrong here BUT, I thought there was a specific account for Social Security payments and starting with reagan whom nipped a little out of it, probably clinton did the same, But it was Bush 2 who took out the social security. He started picking at it about 1 year after he started that lie of a war in Iraq. He told the public it was needed to stop the enemy, hence bringing us to today where there is no social security anymore...so yes there was, once apon a time a social security account which has been sucked dry by our all tyranous corrupt government.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by lbndhr
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


I may be wrong here BUT, I thought there was a specific account for Social Security payments and starting with reagan whom nipped a little out of it, probably clinton did the same, But it was Bush 2 who took out the social security. He started picking at it about 1 year after he started that lie of a war in Iraq. He told the public it was needed to stop the enemy, hence bringing us to today where there is no social security anymore...so yes there was, once apon a time a social security account which has been sucked dry by our all tyranous corrupt government.


It is Congress that dictates when, how much, and why tax dollars get spent. Presidents don't have an account number with that account. They cannot just simply withdraw the money while nobody is looking, or even when someone is looking.

The reason Congress gets away with its undeniable tyranny and irresponsible fiscal policies is because of the ignorance of the people. As long as people are operating under the mistaken belief the President is a king, that President will agree with it, and of course, Congress will too. That way, while everyone is focused on their "king" Congress will play the shenanigans they do.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
I thought Social Security was in a lock box in its own fund?


Did you really? I didn't realize that there are still people out there that thought that, but if you did then probably a lot of others do too.


Originally posted by camaro68ss
Why would Social Security be in the General "coffers" of the Federal Government and be threatened to not be handed out if we hit our debt limit? If it was in its own fund there would not be a problem right?


Over it's entire lifespan the SS program has collected 2.5 trillion more than it paid out. If that money had been invested wisely, the SS program would fund itself indefinitely. But our government in it's infinite wisdom (roll eyes here) did not invest it wisely, it used those surplus funds to buy US Treasury bonds. This created the so-called Social Security Trust Fund. In short, the money we all pay into the SS system amounts to a loan to the government and SS became a "pay as you go" program. But every penny of that loan was spent on other budget items, and now that the Boomers are retiring in large numbers the amount going into the SS coffers (via taxes) is much less than that being paid out to the retirees. The difference in that payout has to be covered under "general expeditures", IE- the annual budget. And that brings us to this predicament, if we don't raise the debt ceiling there won't be money to cover the checks. But ultimately the problem is a lot bigger than simply raising the debt ceiling because the huge surplus of money that should be there to cover the fund payouts is long gone, and retirees are going to outnumber those paying into the system for the foreseeable future (thus the concerns that SS is going "bankrupt").
edit on 15-7-2011 by SavedOne because: typo



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


So much for helping the people...

While Obama funds a war in Libya and continues to put us further and further in debt, he takes away the support we need for the people. We've seen it in their attempts to remove funding from free clinics, their attempts to require health insurance, and their war on the American people. This is just another prime example of Obama being against the people.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Does Obama and the rest of "big gov", get s.s taken out of their checks? Inquiring mind would like to know...



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by morder1

I was talking with my dad about this issue earlier, and he also thought it was a separate account... but nope its all just a lie(SURPRISE)


Its the little lies that hurt the most. yeah look up the case. it will shock you. Best part is Obama gave it away. I would not have looked it up if he did not say it


Do you think Obama wanted people to look deeper? There have been several times in his presidency that it seems he has gone against the standard job protocals, and basically told us something we've never known, and I've wondered each time if he was trying to show us the real truths. I will have to think and research back the other instances, but think about that. His comment should have made a smart nation come to your question and conclusion immediately, but at least you did.





new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join