It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama should've kept his mouth shut!

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
From the mouth of president Obama.


Barack Obama said he makes mistakes on an hourly basis as President but stood firmly behind his administration's work in bolstering the U.S. economy and jobs market.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Oh really, Mister President?


Is President Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents?

Direct payments. The amount of money the federal government hands out in direct payments to individuals steadily increased over the past four decades, but shot up under Obama, climbing by almost $600 billion — a 32% increase — in his first three years. And Obama's last budget called for these payments to climb another $500 billion by 2016, at which point they would account for fully two-thirds of all federal spending.


Entitlement much?


People getting benefits. According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That's up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries.


Nanny state much?


Food stamps. This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That's 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.


And yet, Obama called Bush the food stamp president.


Disability. The number of people on Social Security disability has steadily climbed since the 1970s, thanks mainly to easier eligibility rules. But their numbers jumped 10% in Obama's first two years in office, according to the Social Security Administration. That sharp rise was due largely to meager job prospects since the recession ended in 2009. When employment opportunities are scarce, experts note, many who could otherwise work sign up for disability benefits instead.

news.investors.com...

So a weaker job market creates more on the dole. One way or another.

Enjoy ATS!

Here is "political madness" in it's truest form!




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Tell me this. People have paid for their social security, the same way they have paid for their 401k.

You want the government to cut off social security, i.e. take it away . Do you also think they should take your 401k?

it is basically the same apples just managed by different entities.

Thus any statistics as to entitlements needs to omit social security or might as well not be presented.

Do you get my drift?


+7 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
Tell me this. People have paid for their social security, the same way they have paid for their 401k.

You want the government to cut off social security, i.e. take it away . Do you also think they should take your 401k?

it is basically the same apples just managed by different entities.

Thus any statistics as to entitlements needs to omit social security or might as well not be presented.

Do you get my drift?


Actually I think they should do away with social security.

Just stop it, write everyone a check for the amount they put in and call it good.

Looking at the way government treats money, I'd be better off investing it myself!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
Tell me this. People have paid for their social security, the same way they have paid for their 401k.

You want the government to cut off social security, i.e. take it away . Do you also think they should take your 401k?

it is basically the same apples just managed by different entities.

Thus any statistics as to entitlements needs to omit social security or might as well not be presented.

Do you get my drift?


Not the same at all. When all of the money you put into your 401K (plus accrued interest) runs out....you're done. Money's all gone.

With social security, benefits continue as long as you draw breath. It has the potential to be MUCH more than you put in (even including accrued interest.)

That's why some refer to it as a Ponzi scheme.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
Tell me this. People have paid for their social security, the same way they have paid for their 401k.

You want the government to cut off social security, i.e. take it away . Do you also think they should take your 401k?

it is basically the same apples just managed by different entities.

Thus any statistics as to entitlements needs to omit social security or might as well not be presented.

Do you get my drift?


Actually I think they should do away with social security.

Just stop it, write everyone a check for the amount they put in and call it good.

Looking at the way government treats money, I'd be better off investing it myself!



You do know that is impossible right?

The only thing in the social security fund are government IOU's that the federal government has no intention of paying back.

One of the main reasons, I believe, the feds started calling it an "entitlement" as to distract from all the payroll tax (not federal tax) that they took and replaced with IOU's. By calling it "entitlement" it makes it easier for them to shut down social security and never pay the IOU's back.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Dreamwatcher
 
I know.


Tha's why I'd like to do away with it. It'd expose those in government as the theives we all know they are.

ETA: Social security is basically a tax. And the payback is their way of controling how much you have, how much you spend.
edit on 27-1-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 

That's a good point. I think Social Security could be okay if it were used better. They should have it where you can't draw if you haven't contributed and you can't draw more than you contributed. Like any other 401K or other retirement plan.

I would much rather they send me a check for what I have contributed and I would invest it. Then I might be able to live when I retire and I wouldn't have to wait until a certain age.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Problem obviously is the buying power of money is in a downward spiral. I spent $50 on Monday food shopping for two. Just essentials, by Wednesday I had to spend about $40 more, not including work expenses which I cut as much as possible. Prices are out of control. It's now Friday, do you think I have enough food to last the weekend? At least another $50 and that's if we don't eat out. I think most people want to work. I find myself out of work often and without unemployment I would not be able to survive even a couple weeks. The food stamps, I'm sure most who get them need them. Sure don't have big families and don't live above your means but reality is monetary policy/overseas spending plus FED bubbles burstion are the three major threats to our national security. Anyone not supporting RP needs to come to grips with that. No one else will make any significant changes. To that I say realize it's by design to have a nanny/police state. The most powerful want us dependent. Not hard to see really wether Obama, Bush, whoever. Obama picked up where Bush left off in almost every way. Bailouts, expanded endless wars, loss of jobs, corruption. Tim Geithner, never really talked about, makes perfect sense.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Is President Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents?


Answer - He wants to. That's the dream of every Marxist 'wealth redistributer'. Everyone depending on the nanny-state and then having themselves in charge of the nanny-state purse strings.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Get rid of social security, eh? I'd like to see you say the same thing after losing both legs, or coming down with a crippling disease. It's easy to condemn others until you've walked a mile in their shoes, every day for the rest of your life.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
sigh:shk:

i have a question for
all you "let's get rid of entitlements" folks

what's your hurry?
you do know that the sudden elimination of SS and other programs is going to:

1- cause megadeaths especially among the elderly and children
[then again you're already doing that in many other countries through warfare]

2- will cause the crime rate to soar like never before in history
i mean half the country is on food stamps now isn't it

if you had to choose between "doing the right thing" and as result letting your kids starve
or criminality, what would your choice be?

"why did you kill officer jackboot?"
"officer jackboot, threatened my child's security and continued survival"

wonder how a jury would view such an argument?

see how this will work out?

still think it's worth a civil war on the streets, because you think it's going to get you more investment money, or lower your taxes?

and if you believe the latter: i have a great deal for you on a bridge in Brooklyn
edit on 27-1-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit and comment

edit on 27-1-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: ?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


reply to post by MrUncreated
 



So are you both saying that we've gone past the point of no return?

We are now a socialist state?

No turning back?

?????



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


reply to post by MrUncreated
 



So are you both saying that we've gone past the point of no return?

We are now a socialist state?

No turning back?

?????



And you just *now* figured this out?
Yes, the only way to fix this country is to tear it down to its foundations are start anew.
And the other poster was right. If you get rid of these things, there will many deaths, either due to illness and the inability to pay for medicine, or violence in the streets. But maybe this is the real reason for the FEMA camps, eh?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 

That's a good point. I think Social Security could be okay if it were used better. They should have it where you can't draw if you haven't contributed and you can't draw more than you contributed. Like any other 401K or other retirement plan.

I would much rather they send me a check for what I have contributed and I would invest it. Then I might be able to live when I retire and I wouldn't have to wait until a certain age.


Unfortunately this cannot happen, as there is no money in the social security fund, only Government IOU's

Social Security is funded through a 12.4% payroll tax, more commonly know as "FICA (Federal Insurance Contribution Act)" today. In the past it was split into two different taxes. FICA is completely separate from your Federal Income Tax and is not subject to any kind of individual return, your employer files it or you file it as a self employment tax if you are self employed. There are no refunds, credits etc, it is a straight up tax

You pay 6.2% and your employer pays 6.2%, if self employed you pay the whole 12.4%.
This tax is in effect for the first $102,000 (I believe, I don't recall the exact number right now, but I do know it is under $200,000) of income.

Since Social Security's inception, the federal government has estimated what it will need to pay out in benefits and "borrowed" the rest leaving IOU's in the fund.

In short, there is no money in the fund to give back because the feds stole it all with what appears to be worthless IOU's.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
OP do you know it was the economic collapse set in motion in 2007/2008 that led to the increase in food stamps/welfare? Those programs were put in place to do exactly what they are doing, keeping people out of poverty. Obama didn't create the economic collapse which occurred under his predecessors term, and I haven't seen the Republicans do a damn thing to alleviate a situation they own the lion's share for creating.

Cenk Uygar says it best:


“Sixty-three percent increase of food stamps under Bush, which no one talks about,” Cenk says. “And by the way — who gave us the goddamned recession?”


If anyone should keep their mouths shut - it's the GOP.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Dreamwatcher
 
I know.


Tha's why I'd like to do away with it. It'd expose those in government as the theives we all know they are.

ETA: Social security is basically a tax. And the payback is their way of controling how much you have, how much you spend.
edit on 27-1-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


surely there's other ways of exposing them?

there was a time when if the budget wasn't balanced or the amounts in the treasury came up short
the money had to be put back,
out every senators purse.

hmmm?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamwatcher

In short, there is no money in the fund to give back because the feds stole it all with what appears to be worthless IOU's.


Isn't it ironic, you DON'T pay your taxes, you go to jail.

They STEAL your taxes, no one goes to jail.

USA , USA , USA



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


It may have started with Bush. But it has only gotten worse with Obama.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrUncreated

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


reply to post by MrUncreated
 



So are you both saying that we've gone past the point of no return?

We are now a socialist state?

No turning back?

?????



And you just *now* figured this out?
Yes, the only way to fix this country is to tear it down to its foundations are start anew.
And the other poster was right. If you get rid of these things, there will many deaths, either due to illness and the inability to pay for medicine, or violence in the streets. But maybe this is the real reason for the FEMA camps, eh?


I have hopes that we can still return this country back to what it was meant to be.

Call me a crazy dreamer. . . .



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


All of the statistics that you referred to in the OP are exactly what is to be expected once our economy got driven off the cliff. If you remember correctly, we were losing 750,000 job a month in Jan. 09, when Obama took office and had been doing so for 4 months preceding his inauguration. It took another 3 months before we began to see those numbers trending lower. When that many people are put out of work in such a short period of time, how could you expect anything other than increasing requests for federal assistance?

Even though the following chart assigns the credit for Jan.09 to Obama, (something I disagree with seeing how he wasn't even inaugurated until Jan. 20th of that year) you can still clearly see how Obama has reversed the downward trend he inherited.

reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com...


For those who would say that he's only interested in creating government jobs, here another graph that clearly shows the invalidity of those claims as well.

politicalcorrection.org...



Furthermore, Social Security and Medicare are not handouts, they are insurance programs bought and paid for by their participants. If our government would quit stealing the funds, (they called it re-directing the assets) these programs would be fully funded for the unforeseeable future.

When I served on the Board of Directors of my union's Trust funds, (4 separate funds totaling in excess of $500 million) we were prohibited, via the ERISA act, from doing so much as co-mingling funds, much less utilizing those funds for any purpose other than administrative cost and providing benefits to the beneficiaries of the Trust. If S.S. & Medicare followed the same rules & regulations that are applicable to union Trust funds, they would both be fully solvent today.

When it comes to disability claims on S.S., all I can say is that we need more policing to eliminate the fraud. I don't know of any program whether it be private of governmental that is totally free of fraudulent claims and it's something that just has to be dealt with. Personally, I would be in favor of mandatory jail time for those found guilty of defrauding federal assistance programs. They one thing I do know is that you don't "throw out the baby with the bath water." They are good programs that need some tweaking, that's all.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join