Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,594

    Socialists cancelling their bribes

    back in the early 1900's many people around the world were excited because Karl Marx and his cronies sat down and hammered out the blueprint for modern society. They would focus on the facts, on human behavior, and ignore God to come up with the perfect system.

    as this system failed miserably, and the Nazis were one step away from ending the whole story, dedicated Socialists in the west refused to give in.
    Dedicated Socialists like President Franklin Roosevelt lied to Congress and kept the supply lines open to keep the feeble Russian government alive.

    Despite the fact America was involved with preserving the biggest mass murderer in history, ...Communism in Russia, guys like Roosevelt ignored the death toll and started enacting the Socialist poison in America.

    FDR introduced Social Security/Unemployment/Welfare.
    Americans were faced with the question of excepting the foreign Socialist BRIBE or stick with the Constitutional system where everyone was equal, expected to earn their own way, and there was no free gifts.

    Ida May Fuller, the first Social Security recipient, paid a total of $24 into the system and her first monthly paycheck was $22.

    Q: "Where does the new money come from"
    A: "New participants"
    Q: "Isn't there a point where people might have no jobs or there isn't enough new people to support the system?"
    A: "That's for your grand kids to worry about"

    by supporting this foreign Socialist system, Americans took the bribe then, gave power to a group of people who don't believe in rights and the Constitution, and would worry about problems later.
    (hopefully they would be dead and their grand kids would be able to deal with it)

    over the years the Socialists took more money, and cut back on benefits.
    then, it became, "the system is going broke, if you want to collect your benefits then you have to vote Democrat, and let us pass more unconstitutional crap"

    then in 1965 Johnson enacted Medicare.

    Social Security lasted 70 years, with constant threats of going broke, and now the younger generation will be paying in their whole life and is being told not to expect any retirement.

    Medicare went 47 years and Socialist Obama said that it can not be saved no matter how much they raise taxes.
    the government has created IPAB with the purpose of denying medical procedures to save money.





    how is this country not on the brink of a revolution for the fact this government illegally enacted another Socialist program, Health care, which is worse than the other two combined?
    The Socialist stacked the deck and selected Romney, the guy who enacted ObamaCare in his state, as the "opposing" candidate.

    currently, people can stay on unemployment for 2 years.
    do you really think that will last forever?


    if the benefits of SS ran out in 70 years and the benefits of Medicare ran out in 47, how long will health care last? ...20 years?
    ...well the only thing that matters is, they'll be collecting a lot of money for it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,819
    When these programs first started things were a little different. Certainly health care prices were a lot cheaper. But I think the biggest issue is not a democratic or republican one. And there is no easy answer for it. Its that people are living alot longer now than they were when these programs started. Its the samething thats hurting companies like GM. They didn't figure that they would be paying retirement and health benefits to so many people for so many years. "Legacy" costs such as private and government pensions are also draining our resources for many more years per retiree than was originally anticipated.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,594
    When these programs first started things were a little different. Certainly health care prices were a lot cheaper.
    health care prices took off when the government made it mandatory for insurance companies to be involved.
    the health care bill forcing all working people to buy health insurance is no kind of solution.



    But I think the biggest issue is not a democratic or republican one. And there is no easy answer for it. Its that people are living alot longer now than they were when these programs started.Its the samething thats hurting companies like GM. They didn't figure that they would be paying retirement and health benefits to so many people for so many years.
    that's completly not true.
    1) they tell people that so they don't have to pay SS
    2) they tell people that to make people think the mordern medical industry is a bid success, ...which it's not

    Franklin = 84
    Jefferson = 83
    Washington = 67
    Adams = 91

    my grand father born in 1903 was 104 when he died, he collected SS for 40 years.



    "Legacy" costs such as private and government pensions are also draining our resources for many more years per retiree than was originally anticipated.

    especially when the government is paying life guards 200K per year, and a cop is only on the street 20 years before they retire.

    socialist sytems in government

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,819
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfstrike View Post




    that's completly not true.
    1) they tell people that so they don't have to pay SS
    2) they tell people that to make people think the mordern medical industry is a big success, ...which it's not

    Franklin = 84
    Jefferson = 83
    Washington = 67
    Adams = 91

    my grand father born in 1903 was 104 when he died, he collected SS for 40 years.



    I dont know about completely untrue. You can give individual examples of people that lived along time but when it comes to what a company or government has to pay out I think we need a much larger sampling. The chart in my link shows that the average person didn't even live to age 63 in 1940. And now the average person lives to almost 80. Thats a huge difference in what it costs our businesses and government in legacy costs between now and when many of these programs were first started. Were even living about 10 more years on average since 1965. Thats alot more being paid out every year than was probably anticipated. Retirement age needs to raised dramatically to coincide with how much longer we're living for these programs to have any real chance of surviving IMO.


    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    4,247

    What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?

    "The perfect Totalitarian State is one where the political bosses, and their army of managers, control a population of slaves, who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    5,355
    It's been a few years but my understanding is that Regan borrowed from the Trust Fund to balance his budget and gave the fund an IOU.
    What made him think he could do that? Hey, he's president. I don't think it stopped with Regan either.
    Three ways to fix the problem if there is on. Stop the borrowing, fix the job situation, increase the cutoff income amount.
    Those that think SS is a great program and doable is ignoring facts and mudding the water by throwing commie/socialist rhetoric around.
    Maybe they are just young and bullet proof.
    Tracers work both ways.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    860
    It was my understanding they have been taking money from social security and replacing it with an IOU since Johnson began transferring the funds into the general fund. No one has to decide to do it. Congress took care of that years ago. It's automatic.

    It's a congress thing. Like the budget.
    I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
    ― Benjamin Franklin

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    976
    ponzi scheme

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event