Why It Matters: SOCIAL SECURITY

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
reply to post by beezzer
 


It needs to be tamper-proof.
Remember that BS lock-box from years ago


Older Americans do rely on it.
You cannot change systems mid-stream if it means hanging those 55 and older out to dry.
I'd hate to tell you how many years I paid into the system



If I was told I could opt out today but never get back what has been garnished the last 30 years, I'd take that deal in a heartbeat. I have roughly 20 years until I become eligible to get back a portion of what was unjustly taken from me, and if I could save what I make between now and then on my own terms, I'd still be ahead of the game.

Social Security is the biggest scam in the history of our government. Created to fund U.S. involvement in WWII, it was sold as "insurance". The problem was, FDR knew he couldn't do that legally, so he used the terms "contribution" and "benefits" to sell it to U.S. citizens, but it was created as a simple tax. In fact, the SCOTUS ruled, in Flemming v. Nestor in 1960, that SS is not any sort of insurance or savings account, but a simple tax that no "contributor" is entitled to benefit from:


In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

Social Security Online History Pages

The Social Security fund itself is actually empty. Every dollar taken from you for SS is spent. That dollar is replaced with a special bond. It gains interest at the current rate (which is abysmal), but it cannot be sold like other bonds. So there is no real guarantee that there will ever be any money in the fund again. This is also why SS is considered as part of the deficit: the government owes all of that money that isn't in the SS fund.

/TOA




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 




Originally posted by The Old American
.
Social Security is the biggest scam in the history of our government. Created to fund U.S. involvement in WWII, it was sold as "insurance". The problem was, FDR knew he couldn't do that legally, so he used the terms "contribution" and "benefits" to sell it to U.S. citizens, but it was created as a simple tax. In fact, the SCOTUS ruled, in Flemming v. Nestor in 1960, that SS is not any sort of insurance or savings account, but a simple tax that no "contributor" is entitled to benefit from:



Although Social Security did not really arrive in America until 1935, there was one important precursor, that offered something we could recognize as a social security program, to one special segment of the American population. Following the Civil War, there were hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans, and hundreds of thousands of disabled veterans. In fact, immediately following the Civil War a much higher proportion of the population was disabled or survivors of deceased breadwinners than at any time in America's history. This led to the development of a generous pension program, with interesting similarities to later developments in Social Security. (The first national pension program for soldiers was actually passed in early 1776, prior even to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Throughout America's ante-bellum period pensions of limited types were paid to veterans of America's various wars. But it was with the creation of Civil War pensions that a full-fledged pension system developed in America for the first time.)




World War II, or the Second World War (often abbreviated as WWII or WW2), was a global war that was under way by 1939 and ended in 1945. It involved a vast majority of the world's nations—including all of the great powers—eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. It was the most widespread war in history, with more than 100 million people serving in military units. In a state of "total war", the major participants placed their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities at the service of the war effort, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources. Marked by significant events involving the mass death of civilians, including the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare, it resulted in 50 million to over 70 million fatalities. These deaths make World War II by far the deadliest conflict in all of human history.[1]
Although the Empire of Japan was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937,[2] the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany, and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth

Source


So your contention is that the program was created to fund a war that had not yet even begun, nor was even on the horizon? Even though it was based upon a policy and program with roots from 1776 - and through the Civil War?

I sense a bit of revisionist history maybe?


Originally posted by The Old American


In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

Social Security Online History Pages

Source


~Continued...
edit on 9/30/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/30/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1954 and characterized by heightened fears of communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.
During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned,[1] laws that would be declared unconstitutional,[2] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal[3] or actionable,[4] or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.


Source

This was right wing fanaticism. Not an inherent issue with social programs. I fail to see how it applies to the argument at hand.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

So your contention is that the program was created to fund a war that had not yet even begun, nor was even on the horizon? Even though it was based upon a policy and program with roots from 1776 - and through the Civil War?

I sense a bit of revisionist history maybe?


Hardly. FDR, who knew well the signs and portents of war from WWI, saw the coming world war in the invasion of Italy into Ethiopia, Japan's escalating aggression towards her Asian neighbors and, most pointedly, Hitler's rise as chancellor and his public rejection of the Versailles Treaty and massive build up of Germany's military.

He knew full well another war was coming and since the depression had only just ended, he needed money to build up the U.S. military with any hope of entering as a superpower. Thus he created Social Security and immediately began to loot it to feed the war machine.

No revisionism necessary.

/TOA



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


The curriculum at Yale tends to disagree.


Franklin D. Roosevelt advocated a new direction on foreign affairs by his Good Neighbor Policy. Actually, it was not a new direction since Hoover had started a policy of cooperation with the Latin American countries. So far as the Latin American countries were concerned, their governments were pleased by his abandonment of Theodore Roosevelt�s interventionism. Secretary Cordell Hull agreed to the idea of cooperation when he visited the Pan American Conference in Montevido in Uruguay in 1933. This policy of nonintervention was carried out by:
(a) the American withdrawal of marines from Haiti,
(b) a new treaty signed with Cuba whereby the Platt Amendment was nullified,
(c) the U.S. giving up the right to police the Panama government in 1939,
(d) the U.S. giving up control of finances of the Dominican Republic,
(e) and only making mild protests to the Mexican government when it took over oil and farmlands owned by American citizens, thereby repudiating dollar diplomacy.
The students should become aware that the Good Neighbor Policy was a continuous policy and not a campaign slogan. In 1936, when F.D. Roosevelt attended the Pan American Conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, he showed that the United States was willing to stop dominating weaker nations by its adherence to the �Declaration of Principles of Inter-American Solidarity and Cooperation,� and that the Latin American countries would be treated as equals.
Sometimes students feel that treaties are just pieces of paper signed by dignitaries, and then forgotten. A way of showing the students that this is not so all the time is to point out that the above treaty brought about concrete results:

(a) A government cultural exchange program was instituted, supplemented by local and private agencies.
(b) Hollywood film makers agreed to change the image of Latins in their films.
(c) Time Magazine started publishing in Spanish and Portuguese.
Following Hoover�s example, F.D. Roosevelt supplanted economic nationalism with economic cooperation:
(a) Reciprocity treaties were made with 15 different Latin American countries.
(b) U.S. government capital gradually replaced private investments through the Export-Import Bank and the U.S. Treasury Department.
(c) F.D. Roosevelt increased, nearly by double, the annual payments to Panama for canal rights.
After war broke out in Europe in 1939, the earlier Declaration of Lima was strengthened at a conference in Panama to secure �the sovereignty, political independence of the American states� and set up the machinery to make the declaration effective, with Latin American countries as coequal partners. This made the Monroe Doctrine more forceful by changing it from a unilateral U.S. doctrine to a multilateral Pan-American doctrine.


To his credit FDR did see the danger of Germany and was kept from acting due to an isolationist Congress.

But, insofar as we've discussed this... We have wandered off topic. So I'll defer any further debate - unless it can tie back into Social Security.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Greece didn't collapse because of socialism...it collapsed because of bankers bribing politicians.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Just get rid of Congressional retirement pay so they have to live on SS like the rest of us.
The problem would get solved over lunch.

Note the average disabled worker gets around $1,100 a month -
then subtract $100 for Mandatory Medicare payments, even if you're not enrolled.
So, why is it they want to increase the numbers of those living in poverty this way?
edit on 1-10-2012 by Asktheanimals because: corrections



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Bluesma
 




so, well, all I can say to you gen x'ers is....
have fun supporting mom and dad in their old age...
if you've sat there and let the scam be carried out that defrauded so many, fully supporting the fools doing the scamming, guess you deserve to have your parents dumped on you!!!

wonder how many of yas will be shouting the battle call when they decide they need another war.




More of the usual- "if you had kept me from losing my self control, you wouldn't have to pay for this now..."
Yeah, yeah, I know.... one should never hold Boomers responsible for what they do, because they "DID things in the 60's man!" They are self rightious outspoken heros in their own minds, and their kids are the demon spawn that must parent them from the time they are born until they die.
Well, I was a little busy trying to survive another day, with the responsibility for parent AND siblings to carry, keeping up on the magic tricks of the politicians was just more than I had the energy for.

Eventually mom killed herself when I turned my head for a moment, Dad took off when I was 8 . I won't be taking anyone in. I'm free.

I'm living as a survivalist high in the mountains. I saw this coming and prepared.

I haven't "supported" any of this crap. But go ahead and blame me, I don't mind. I'm used to it. Doesn't mean much in the long run.

My dad the right wing, pot smoking christian stock broker, is the one rooting for all these wars.
The friggin' hypocrisy of that generation is mind blowing! The ones who once chanted "Hell No We Won't Go!" sure are quick to send their grandchildren out into the battle!

One day he'll say to me that it is my fault I didn't stop him from doing all that, too. Screw that. Let him drown with the rest of his friends.


edit on 1-10-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Social Security used to be you got back what you paid into to it over the years. Then they started stealing peoples S.S. to spread the wealth and devote Your money to programs for people who never paid into the system.

This is where the system broke down and became corrupted. I am 100% against anyone getting a dime from S.S if they didn't pay into the system.

Do we help these people. Of Course, but Not from Social Security because it's not meant to be a general fund for everyone. Let that money come from someplace else.

I refuse to pay into the social security system. I don't want money I put in being spread around when it was never for that purpose - that money is supposed to be for Me.

I will never draw S.S. I don't want or need it. If I'm broke and sick then I will either fix myself with natural means or I will Die. That is fair. Too many people looking for a handout and they think S.S. is going to give it to them. They should have paid into the system themselves. There should be other forms of revenue to help these people.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
SS is a ponzi scheme by definition thats just the plain truth. It was a stupid idea due in part to needing an ever expanding base to pay those reaching the age of retirement. Then add on disability and death benifits and you have a recipie for failure of a program people rely on. The money would of been better served being directly deposited into a personal account that accrews intrest untill age 65 at which time one would be able to draw from it at a pre determined rate. Upon death the remaining balance should be passed on to next of kin or divied out to their offsprings accounts. The more you work the more you would have to retire on. 55 years at 200 a month plus interest would be a nice amount. Probibly should have the option of adding in personal cash as well.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


um...thinking back to the 60's...
oh ya, I was in grade school..
just what is it I did again???

first find out just who it is you are talking about, because it's a wide area!!
1945 to 1964, that's the range of the boomers....



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I am truly happy to log on today and find that this hasn't degraded into a left vs right war. Kudos to you ATS! A little bickering here and there is understandable, and we got it here. But no war. Awesome!

When I was falling asleep last night, one of the tangents my mind went down as I was drifting off was the idea of how many of the people who scream, kick, and holler about Social Security today - will refuse to collect it, just on principle, in the future?

I bet Rush Limbaugh hits retirement age and files for his benefits just like the rest of us will. And he should, he paid into it. He has the right. I just can't figure out why some people could spend their lives on the one side of the argument and then, when it finally benefits them, silently switch teams. I bet this happens a LOT. I have a lot of older relatives, all Republican - and some of them have a lot of money. I've never heard a single one of them brag about not getting Social Security...

~Heff



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
I bet Rush Limbaugh hits retirement age and files for his benefits just like the rest of us will. And he should, he paid into it. He has the right. I just can't figure out why some people could spend their lives on the one side of the argument and then, when it finally benefits them, silently switch teams. I bet this happens a LOT. I have a lot of older relatives, all Republican - and some of them have a lot of money. I've never heard a single one of them brag about not getting Social Security...

~Heff


If one's thinking on SS is that it is theft, which is what one's thinking should be, then getting it back isn't "partisan" or "flip-flopping". It's justice.

/TOA



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


So it's justice for a wealthy person to receive benefits. But it's robbing from the future for anyone else to participate? I truly am becoming confused as to what the opposition actually believes here.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I wonder just how many of them would want the gov't to renag on paying their retirement fund, or the mutual fund that they are invested in, ect....
in reality, it wouldn't surprise me if they all fall...long before I reach retirement age....

but, well, what can I say, people who are trying so hard for the gov't to avoid one of their major bills, to save them a few bucks now, well, they have nothing to say to us if we just decide not to pay our bills either, right??/

ya, I know defaulting on social security would be considered a stategic default, just like when the rich decide that an investment in realestate has gone sour and decide not to pay...
but when it's us peons, well, it's just plain irresponsible!!!



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Always happy to give a thread the 17th flag.

I read through the thread and unless I missed it, the issue of a possible lifespan increase didn't come up.


While opinions differ wildly about what the ramifications for society will be if the human lifespan is extended, most ethicists agree that the issue should be discussed now, since it might be impossible to stop or control the technology once it's developed.
www.livescience.com...


When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Social Security into law in 1935, it was a lifeline to poor seniors and an easy promise to keep – the retirement age was 65 while life expectancy was 63, noted Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., a member of President Obama's fiscal commission. "The numbers added up pretty well back then," he said with a chuckle. "It was never designed to be a program that would last 25 or 30 years and so that's one of the reasons why there is so much fiscal pressure on it."
www.foxnews.com...

If the strain on a longer lifespan is being felt already, then a significant medical advancement could mean a political crisis.

While currently we are seeing some trends toward shorter lives because of unhealthy choices, in the next decade or two this could easily be reversed thanks to medical breakthroughs including nanotech and biotech.

Some predict advanced nanotechnology will allow most medical treatment to be done by microscopic robots being programmed to clean out any health issues on a cell to cell basis. The first merger of man and technology could be a permanent fleet of nanobots traveling the bloodstream to supplement the natural immune system.


The ultimate tool of nanomedicine is the medical nanorobot—a robot the size of a bacterium, composed of molecule-size parts somewhat resembling macroscale gears, bearings, and ratchets. Medical nanorobotics holds the greatest promise for curing disease and extending health span. With diligent effort, the first fruits of medical nanorobotics could begin to appear in clinical treatment as early as the 2020s.
www.lef.org...

Nanotech is cool stuff, I live right down the road from UAlbany's school of nanoscience which is the top research center in the nation and a very impressive facility.

Biotech, I'm not well versed in, but there seems to be comparable research being done for life extension.


A revolution in biotechnology is presently underway, and the medicine of the near future holds great promise - see, for example, the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS) worked on by the SENS Foundation and other scientific groups.
www.fightaging.org...


So let's say that this stuff happens, and by that date of 2033 people are living beyond 100 on average. That will make the fight to save social security all the more difficult.

Some good measures would be increasing the payment cap, increasing retirement age, trying to shift some of the burden to nonprofits in the private sector, and somehow increasing personal savings.

Like most problems, this one being solved is contingent on economic growth. If people have jobs, they can save more and the government won't spend so much on benefits. Also, like most problems, I believe the primary solution is a cultural change toward more responsible communities in taking care of the needy. We have about a 25% volunteer rate, including people who volunteer once a year. If that was closer to 50%, with a good number giving time to the elderly, we might see a lower social security burden on the federal government.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
After reading thru some comments.It seems to me alot of people dont see the good things social security can do if its done right...my father is on social security disability and get about 1000 a month to live on and is allowed to make 800 a month as well on the side,anymore than that and they take it out of his next.months payment. To the people who say that ppl who work and are on disability need to check up on their state laws when it comes to that or something because my dad dont have a 40hr work week max..he can make 800 on the side and thats it..Which is BS because even that is not enough to live on..me and my father live in a one room studio together,some days the nueropathys in his feet alobg with his swollen feet and legs,he cant walk so we cant work.. and still..between both of our incomes we are barely scraping by living check to check..its not easy money in any sense for a lot of people, I agree get the scammers but until you know someones situation,you have no right to pass judgement in any sense,and you shouldnt judge to begin with.anyways.

my dad was also a state worker for 20 yrs and payed into a ponzi scheme for his retirement..which he probably wont live to see anyways because of his health issues.they fired him for getting hurt on the job and its their fault for not having the proper amount of help for him on the job, someone should of been holding the ladder he fell off when 220 volts of electricity jumped through his body and then broke his back...he did get a settlement for them firing him,but what is the price on a gd job with good benefits?? We also dont use any other state benefits like food stamps or welfare. We are hard working people..i think We would be living alot different if that accident didnt happen but I am thankful for every day I get to spend with the man. my dad is a saint,and I say that because he wud give u the shirt off his back if he had to..it figures bad things happen to good ppl but back,to the topic,i just wanted to share my whole story.

People need social security. Not everyone on it but there alot of people who worked their asses off just to get screwed in the end. And there are people who are very disabled and need that income to survive.. And personally as a young adult, I worry about if ill ever get the chance to retire because some banker thought it would fit their needs to rob people of their livelyhoods. On that note im out..peace n buds
edit on 1-10-2012 by dreamtraveler420 because: Needed to revise



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


the reason why so many depend on it is the corp cut out pensions and went to 401k to save money,and as of 2008 most people lost there 401k.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Annee
 


I see it somewhat differently. It's not like it's charity, at least in regard to retirement benefits. It's insurance. Literally. You pay in, and you get back out when your time to do so comes. Afflack does it, and makes a mint. Every insurance company does it, and ends up making money hand over fist as well.

But leave it to the American government to screw up a proven system...


As for disability, survivors benefits, SSI... slightly different situation. But retirement? Those who pay should get what they pay for.

When people discuss this issue they never seem to mention the percentage of people who pay in, die before retirement age, and never see a single cent of it? Where does that money go?

This issue gets so distorted by politicos and pundits. It's spun like taffy, leaving us to all try and figure it out.

~Heff


You are absolutely correct. If the government had managed the payments the same way the insurance companies do we retirees could be living comfortably on SS alone instead of scraping by. But if you want to talk about a group that should lose their "entitlement" it is not the blacks, it is not the Hispanics, it is not the poor welfare recipients, it is not any of those and many more; it is the politicians who believe they are entitled to do as they bloody well please with our tax dollars no matter what promises they made to get us to accept their tax scams.

As to the people who pay in and die before collecting benefits; the whole thing is based on actuarial tables. If the tables are computed right then for every person who dies before collecting benefits there is another person who lives far beyond the average age of death the tables are based on.

Social security was originally set up to help people who make it to retirement age so they would not be a burden on society or the government after their earning years are over. But since Congress has not lived up to their original promises we retirees will soon become that burden or worse.

I am 73 with a family longevity history that means I could easily see another 20 to 25 years before I die, barring an accident or unforeseen illness. I live in fear that what meager income I have from SS will disappear long before that time and I will be at the mercy of the soup kitchens and flop house like living quarters.

BTW - I am not as bad off as some on my SS alone since I earned quite well in my prime. I even had quite a tidy retirement fund going until my wife had a six year run with four bouts of non Hodgkins Lymphoma. Our insurance covered us for the first two bouts and treatments. But when the Oncologist told us that there was nothing more he could do we were forced to try treatments that WERE NOT covered by insurance or medicaid. By the time she died in 1995 we were tapped out. That was also the time business started dropping off and I had to give up a business I had run successfully for 25 years. I was never able to fully recover from that and now am consigned to living on my SS alone.
edit on 2-10-2012 by happykat39 because: To add last paragraph



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


even if they did come up with the magic potion that extended our lifespan considerably, it wouldn't be worth a danged if that life that was extended wasn't healthy enough to live a fullfilling life...
which means, the retirement age could be raised quite a bit!!

I don't see this one happening with many of the boomers, our bodies have just been invaded by too many toxins via our water, our food, and air throughout our lifetimes. I don't see it happening with the next few generations afterwards, because of the same reason. it's not so much the bad decisions that is tearing up our bodies, it's more that when the epa decided it was so bad to dump all those toxins into the environment and the industries found it more profitable to just add the crap to our products and food... we now live in a plastic world, plastic is all around us....plastic is toxic...flouride is in the water, flouride is toxic... and, well, the food they are selling in the stores isn't that healthy either!!
personally, I work in a job that requires a high about of physical activity, I won't be able to to this type of work till 65 let alone 70 or 80! I am looking for an avenue to career change, even taking some free online course...sorry ain't getting entangled into the higher education scam....it's gotten just too danged insane, and I consider myself to be too old to consider such a high cost investment, weather I am the one footing the bill, or someone else is.
doubt if my husband will make it much past 65 either.

another thing they never talk about is the amount that they stop taxing for social security, it could be raised...
and, I wouldn't be surprised if they found that most of those who are earning less than that amount have had their wages just about stagnant for the past few decades while those above it are seeing amazing raises and bonuses. why not, uncle sam wouldn't be getting such a big cut from those raises, would they???

if the lower end of the income earners were making more, getting some of those raises, well, that would boost the money going into the system....but well, it seems the wages have either stayed about where they are at, or even decrease for most of us.

we know where the money is ending up at, wall street, too big to fail banks, ect....
maybe we should just start full scale prosecutions for the fraudsters instead of rewarding they graciously for their most recent screw up!! recoup the money they've swindled from us???





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join