Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/24/2005 10:20:15 AM PST by jmc813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: jmc813

Read later.


2 posted on 01/24/2005 10:26:06 AM PST by JustAnotherSavage (When conservatives break their principles they seem to become casual about breaking the law, too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813

I have a fool proof way to balance the budget. Stop all congressional pay raises until the budget is balanced, SS is well financed into 2100, and the debt is starting to be paid down. I figure this will take about 2 or 3 weeks once we give the lying, thiefing, dirtballs in Washington this motivation.


3 posted on 01/24/2005 10:28:48 AM PST by TXBSAFH (Never underestimate the power of human stupidity--Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813
After all, which government officials will decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles are approved? Which politicians will you trust to decide what your portfolio may contain? Imagine the lobbyists fighting over which special interests will have their favored investments approved for Social Security accounts. Political favoritism, rather than market performance, will determine what investments are allowed, and Social Security in essence will become a huge source of taxpayer-provided investment capital.

Good, at least we have one person in Congress standing up for economic sanity. These points bear repeating, over and over.

4 posted on 01/24/2005 10:33:58 AM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813
What has not changed, however, is our willingness to accept the notion that the government should force us to save for our older years.

Bears constant repetition.

5 posted on 01/24/2005 10:34:00 AM PST by Protagoras (No one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave. GWB 1-20-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813

He is my congressman and he came to my Christmas Party. We just love him.


6 posted on 01/24/2005 10:34:25 AM PST by buffyt (The Liberals are HYPO-CRAZY with Hipocracy! Protesting again FREEDOM now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813

I doubt many people will read this. They don't want to know the truth about SS or if they do know the truth they don't want to think about it. If every American knew the truth about social security, and how politicians of both parties steal money from the program they would be outraged and politicians would be forced to stop.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking on my part. It does seem strange that the theft of billions of dollars is tolerated by the people of this country though. Strange that most of them think that it IS ethical for politicians to steal SS money and use it for other things, but refusing to pay SS taxes to the thieves IS NOT ethical. The notion of right and wrong is twisted upside down in this country.

Whats right has become wrong and whats wrong has become right. It's a government of lies lead by thieves, and the people are the fools who allow it.


12 posted on 01/24/2005 10:45:44 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813

Bush's SS "reform" will be a huge windfall for our rulers. Can you imagine the lobbying dollars that are going to flow into Congress in order to get a piece of the action?


14 posted on 01/24/2005 10:48:10 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813
"Want to Reform Social Security"

How about taking it out of general funding and put it back into its own account. ( This was done by LBJ to use SS $$$ to fund the Viet Nam war.....and cover his deficit spending.)

Placing SS off budget makes it self funding and NOT subject to the exorbitant spending by other areas of the gov't.
17 posted on 01/24/2005 10:51:28 AM PST by Smartaleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813

May I add -- TERM LIMITS! No more lifetime congresscreatures, and you take away what fuels Washington -- POWER (and money.) How many of these people go to DC as regular, middle-class people and leave as millionaires???? The Clintons come to mind!


21 posted on 01/24/2005 11:04:48 AM PST by Polyxene (For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813
The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Social Security is simply a tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is spent immediately as general revenues to fund the federal government.

I think it is safe to assume that the great majority of Freepers understand and agree with this statement. It is true.

What many may not remember is that our hero Ronald Reagan raised those very taxes in the early 80's "too save Social Security". In fact, all he did was raise our taxes via the payroll tax while cutting the income tax. I'm sure it was net plus for the taxpayer but don't kid yourself, he just built another giant slush fund for congress to spend in order to insure that they get re-elected. It was a foolish thing for him to do. We have been running a surplus in the SS tax collections ever since and every penny of it has been spent.

40 posted on 01/24/2005 12:19:57 PM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813

sorry to offend the Paulophiles ... but his response is long winded and typical political speech ...

bottom line with socialist insecurity is that the "old age insurance" program is and has been actuarially out of balance.

i.e. most of the money that goes in pays current retirees ... because people since the late 30s have been getting out more than they paid in plus interest and inflation ... otherwise known as a ponzi/pyramid scheme

e.g. today the average retiree lives to 76/77 but has collected their fare share by about 71 (fair share = everything they put in plus interest and inflation).

Problem is no politician has the guts to talk about putting the system into actuarial balance (i.e. RAISING THE RETIREMENT age ... bumping it up a year every 2/3 years until it gets into actuarial balance .. which today would be about 72/73 ...

about the problem gets worse with the baby boom generation ... who yes paid more into the system ... but their age expectation is expected to rise to the mid 80s.

So, our politician have only addressed the actuarial issue (raising the age) once ... the raising to 67 in the future ... which is too little too late ...

instead the FICA portion of socialist insecurity has gone from I believe initially .5% to 6.2% ...

ANY POLITICIAN ... including Ron Paul ... who is not willing to come out and say the retirement age for the program is the main problem ... is looking out for one thing ... GETTING RE-ELECTED ... becase the AARP is the most powerful DC lobby in the country.!


41 posted on 01/24/2005 12:29:20 PM PST by bluebeak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813
<> NOT PRACTICAL ... because the money contributed by current payees is gone ... paid out (mostly) to current recipients. Serious solution is to phase out the current plan (and raise the retirement age) ... and phase in a new private plan (for new people entering the system). His solution of scrapping the plan entirely is childish liberterian thinking = shiite that won't happen (unless the country went through some prolong economic meltdown worse than the depression). Unfortunately, he was elected to deal with reality vs. some utopian theories that are best suited for a classroom. sorry to offend some of you ... i would love to see the current socialist insecurity program to disappear ... but that is not going to happen
43 posted on 01/24/2005 12:35:12 PM PST by bluebeak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813
Why has some lawyer not gone after the Feds for making Ex Post Facto laws regarding social insecurity?

We were forced into this program when we received our first paycheck (unless you are a government type exempt from the little people laws). I was to get this piss poor return on my money when I retired at 65. Then they passed a law, retroactive in relation to my earnings to force me to wait until 66.5 to receive my full check. That is an illegal ex post facto law and it should be struck down.

The SS number was also supposed to be used for "benefits" only and illegal to require it for other purposes. Well the bastards changed that law in the middle of the game also.

Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales 514 US 499 (1995).

57 posted on 01/25/2005 8:49:12 AM PST by Wurlitzer (I have the biggest organ in my town {;o))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813

Too late. The horse has been stolen, the barn burned and the thief sits in Washington D.C., laughing at us.


65 posted on 01/25/2005 9:14:48 AM PST by cynicom (<p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jmc813
Social Security reform promises to be the biggest domestic issue this year in Washington, but most of the proposals are nothing more than flim-flam.

The only honest solution to the future insolvency of the program is for Congress to stop spending so much money.

Yeah and the best way to stop the hemmorhaging of our tax dollars is for the Congress(Senate and House members)to stop the utter corruption of their lying and stealing of these tax dollars for their pork barrel friends!

Do you as the elected to the U.S.Congress wonder who is to blame, take a look at yourself in a mirror!

Surprise, Surprise!

71 posted on 01/25/2005 9:32:41 AM PST by VOYAGER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson