PDA

View Full Version : Social Security is not an “entitlement” program.



Ponce
18th February 2011, 11:06 AM
Social Security is not an “entitlement” program.

Marti Oakley, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

A long coveted cut to Social Security and Medicare is going to happen. This will occur for reasons none of the politicians in the District of Criminals will ever speak about publicly. There is far more at stake here than what the District terms an “unfunded liability”. When you hear those in the District speak about this liability, you need to understand what they are really saying. This is an intra-governmental debt, meaning; a debt accrued within the government. It is a liability to the federal government because it is owed to “you” and they have no way of paying it back without taxing you more heavily. You are the “full faith and credit” of the United States corporation. That means government runs up the bills and we pay it.

The federal government now includes Social Security in its debt portfolio, not because the program is insolvent or ever was, and not because the Federal government has to fund it in any sense (SS is funded by your investments) but because the Federal government has stolen so much money from the fund, then sold special treasury securities on those stolen funds to countries like China to finance the massive debt accruing across the board. Since there is no chance the national debt can ever be repaid, the Fed is now in the position of finagling the discharge of internal debt from the books. Look at it as a form of back door bankruptcy.

The federal government DOES NOT fund Social Security! Social Security funds the federal government.

Since the Johnson Administration of the 60s, the S.S. fund has been plundered and the surplus from the fund used to finance wars and the daily operations of the federal government. This came as a result of Johnson declaring that these surplus funds would be added to the general fund. Once there, the funds could be used for anything and everything.


As only one example: The Bush2 Administration had to cover the loss of revenues from the welfare tax cuts to the upper 3%. It was imperative that the administration be able to cover up the loss by showing a presumed increase in revenues that was supposed to have resulted from this preferential treatment of the uber wealthy. Surplus funds were stripped from SS, along with any unused funding from any other program, then added to the general revenue column as though these increases were generated as an actual result of the welfare tax cuts. These stolen funds with their new designation as “revenue” were then used as proof that these welfare tax cuts were beneficial. Its all a lie, and one the middle and working classes are about to pay the bill on.

Every administration has, without exception used the same tactics to hide preferential treatment of their buddies; to cover up expenditures for things most of us would find highly objectionable.
Most of the American public is totally clueless as to the deceptive accounting practices being used to fool them, and most still have no idea that the budget presented to the public is the simplified budget and only includes carefully presented revenues and expenses meant to portray a specific picture of the nations financial dealings. And many more of us are totally unaware that there is another budget referred to as the “unified budget” which shows all revenues from every source and every expense of any kind and a budget which, if we were to view it and understand the true implications, would most likely scare the beetlejuice out of most of us.

Note** Even the unified budget does not itemize, contain or otherwise acknowledge the funds diverted to “black ops”…no one can know that for some reason. Black ops are the clandestine operations performed by various organizations within the government and usually the CIA and are said to cost the country billions each year.

The stolen SS funds are now approaching 3 trillion. That is 3 trillion dollars of FICA taxes gleaned from generations of workers for a specific purpose that the federal government stole and then sold special treasury notes on. This is a debt owed by the federal government (USA Corp) to the investors (all you workers) that they never had any intention of paying back and is why it is referred to as an “unfunded liability”. It is a massive cash liability for a debt owed to generations of working Americans. As the amount stolen from the investments of workers grows so does the unfunded liability incurred.

At this point, one or more things must happen to protect the thieves.

In what can only be described as a another case of nationalizing the losses and privatizing the profits, we have the District career criminals calling for raising the age of retirement as one option to curtail the number of people able to access their investments in Social Security. This means fewer people leaving the job market and conversely, fewer jobs available to those entering the job market. A really crappy idea considering the millions out of work now and only one job available for every five applicants.

Another option proffered is cutting the amount of benefits. This one is really sneaky! You are supposed to think that by cutting benefits this will somehow offset any future shortfalls in Social Security. Here’s what it really does: It increases the amount of SS surpluses accrued because it lowers the amount being paid out of the fund and increases the funds available to the ongoing theft of your investment. While millions are out of work and not investing in Social Security, this scam will reduce payouts while maintaining virtually the same level of surplus the Federal government is going to steal.

The favorite of course is to collapse Social Security altogether.

“Therefore, Obama’s commission may recommend a variety of tactics to strip the program: instituting benefit cuts, increasing the age in which benefits are received, and introducing a limited option for personal accounts. Also possible is the implementation of a tiny, ineffectual tax on the rich to give the illusion that everybody is making sacrifices.”

I am always amazed at the hyperventilating of those who scream “It’s a ponzi scheme!” I have news for you; so is the stock market and so are your insurance policies. You invest in each of these with full expectation of reaping more than you sowed. In each of these situations, a system of perpetual funding is devised with a promise of future profitable expectations by you. The difference is this; Social Security is not operated with the intent to profit, but the insurance company and stock market is.

Social Security is NOT an unfunded liability. Social Security is very well funded by American workers. The federal government is the unfunded liability but covers this liability by stealing the retirement investments of workers. Yet there are those out there who are now trying to reframe this issue by claiming that there never was a Social Security trust fund, and, that FICA taxes collected to cover your investment in that fund aren’t really investment taxes..this is just an additional tax levied on you for some vague reason and therefore its quite alright for the federal government to seize these funds for other purposes.

Many people believe that Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is the same as Social Security. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes). http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/ The program is administered by the Social Security administration so that the costs of administration are shifted to SS, but the funding for claims is not from your investment in Social Security.

Those who are beating the drums for ending social security as they allow themselves to be consumed by political rhetoric that bears little resemblance to the truth, need to do some real research on the actual benefits of this program as opposed to allowing those doing the talking to paint this program as an “entitlement” and some form of welfare that was unearned. Social Security is an investor funded program that has also been used to fund the government, it is NOT an entitlement program nor was it intended to be any form of welfare. The “entitlement” the government speaks of would be more aptly applied to them; they feeling they are entitled to avail themselves of our investments and use that money for whatever they choose to. This amounts to a second and third round of taxes as many of our payees are forced to pay taxes on their benefits each year after being taxed over their working lifetime to fund their investment. The third tax is exemplified in the theft of surplus funds the government can’t pay back.

Extra demands are put on Social Security as illegal aliens are granted access to the fund without actually having contributed to it to any degree. An illegal alien from Mexico, can come here, work under an admitted assumed name, work as little as three quarters and return to Mexico and make a claim against Social Security. The summary of the GAO report contained this statement:

GAO report
“Under the Social Security Act, all earnings from employment in the United States count towards earning social security benefits, regardless of the lawful presence of the worker, his or her citizenship status, or country of residence. Immigrants [both legal and otherwise] become entitled to benefits from unauthorized work if they can prove that the earnings and related contributions belong to them. However, they cannot collect such benefits unless [or until] they are either legally present in the United States [hence the Administration's Guest Worker Program], or living in a country where SSA is authorized to pay them their benefits. [Hence an SSA office in Mexico City] Mexico is such a country.”

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03993.pdf

The upshot of all of this is: Social Security is not only paying for wars, government expenses, and other non-related purposes, it is also covering the loss of revenues resulting from the welfare tax rates given to the uber wealthy and to fund illegal immigration, an activity that is bankrupting communities across the country. At the same time it is still producing a surplus above and beyond all claims of any kind made against it, although if a real effort isn’t made soon to create and secure jobs here in the US, many things along with Social Security are going to disappear.

And many of you think this would be just great as long as long as you are left untouched by it all, and many of you for some reason believe you will somehow be exempt; that your life will be unaltered or

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/02/social-security-is-not-entitlement.html

onceseen
18th February 2011, 11:12 AM
Great post. I have been SCREAMING for years that the bad guys are trying to conflate true 'entitlement' programs with programs that people fund out of their own pockets (social security, unemployment insurance, etc). When they say 'we don't have the money', they are LIEING. Sure they have the money, but they would rather spend it on the military industrial complex, bribery, and corporate welfare. That is not to say that agree that social security is a good thing, btw.

dys

Sparky
18th February 2011, 11:34 AM
How the Social Security system is "Solvent" Through 2037...

A man took his 6-year old daughter Jenny aside, and said "If you do well in school, I'm going to pay for your entire college education some day. I'm going to set aside $1000 every month for the next 150 months, so that the money will be there when you need it."

But the man only earned enough money to pay for his own expenses. So instead, every month, he wrote on a slip of paper "I owe Jenny $1000", and put the slip into a large glass jar. Month after month he added IOUs to the jar.

When Jenny turned 17, having been a diligent student, she got accepted at university of her choice. With only a year before starting college, she checked in with her father.

"Dad, you promised to pay for my college education, and I have held up my end of the bargain. I'm going to need $150,000 over the next four years. Are we in good shape with that?"

"No problem, Jenny," replied her father. "I'm right on track. I have a jar with 138 slips of paper, each indicating that I promise to pay you $1000. By the time you go off to school, I'll have 150 of them."

po boy
18th February 2011, 11:57 AM
I guess this guy came to the same conclusion.
www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/socsec1.htm (http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/socsec1.htm)

" Did not reveal and disclose the truth that, upon obtaining a
Social Security Number, a white natural born State Citizen
would lose his primary State Citizenship, Privileges and
Immunities and become a business entity, under Social
Security, and an enfranchised person, under the 14th
Amendment, and would lose access to his Constitutional
Rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and Amendments 1
through 10; and instead he would become a federal citizen
and receive privileges and immunities which are revokable at
the pleasure of the Legislature. (See Section 1104 of the
Social Security Act, and Article I, Section 7 of the
California Constitution, and Amendment 14 of the U.S.
Constitution.)"

uncletonoose
18th February 2011, 12:06 PM
I guess this guy came to the same conclusion.
www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/socsec1.htm (http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/socsec1.htm)

" Did not reveal and disclose the truth that, upon obtaining a
Social Security Number, a white natural born State Citizen
would lose his primary State Citizenship, Privileges and
Immunities and become a business entity, under Social
Security, and an enfranchised person, under the 14th
Amendment, and would lose access to his Constitutional
Rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and Amendments 1
through 10; and instead he would become a federal citizen
and receive privileges and immunities which are revokable at
the pleasure of the Legislature. (See Section 1104 of the
Social Security Act, and Article I, Section 7 of the
California Constitution, and Amendment 14 of the U.S.
Constitution.)"



I understand and agree, but try to get a job without the card. :boohoo

Ponce
18th February 2011, 12:07 PM
I am not sure about this.........but........once I put my money into Social Security it then becomes a "entitlement" no?, in other words, I did my share so that now those to whom I gave my money have to do their "share"......no?

po boy
18th February 2011, 12:22 PM
Ponce when you sign up you pledge to give a portion of your money for all your working days in hope of receiving something in return with no guarantee that congress won't give you the high hard one.

Ponce
18th February 2011, 12:32 PM
Thanks po boy............in 9 years I already recup about four times what I put into it.......but.......that's besides the point because I am supposed to get it till the day that I die..............but.........becasue I always work on a plan behind the plan they could take my SS away and I still would be doing ok till the day that I die...........is not what you have but how you use what you have.........your head.

Sparky
18th February 2011, 01:52 PM
It's an entitlement as soon as they put a promise into law Other than that, it's a just a word. They could "un-entitle" the promise at any point by repealing the law, if they were willing to lose all the votes it would cost them.

jetgraphics
18th February 2011, 01:52 PM
Did not reveal and disclose the truth that, upon obtaining a
Social Security Number, a white natural born State Citizen
would lose his primary State Citizenship, Privileges and
Immunities and become a business entity
That is incorrect.
Citizens, by definition, are subjects.
Proof: militia duty. . . since 1777... all male citizens were obligated to train, fight and die - which is a violation of one's inalienable rights - unless consent was given.
Ergo, no one can be "born" a citizen unless they are a slave.

In American law, people are sovereigns, until they surrender that status... unless born within the jurisdiction of the United States, a foreign corporation.

Form SS-5, application for an account and number, is limited to U.S. citizens / U.S. residents.
American nationals, free inhabitants who are domiciled upon their private property are ineligible to participate - nor would they wish to.

Carl
18th February 2011, 01:54 PM
I guess this guy came to the same conclusion.
www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/socsec1.htm (http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/socsec1.htm)

" Did not reveal and disclose the truth that, upon obtaining a
Social Security Number, a white natural born State Citizen
would lose his primary State Citizenship, Privileges and
Immunities and become a business entity, under Social
Security, and an enfranchised person, under the 14th
Amendment, and would lose access to his Constitutional
Rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and Amendments 1
through 10; and instead he would become a federal citizen
and receive privileges and immunities which are revokable at
the pleasure of the Legislature. (See Section 1104 of the
Social Security Act, and Article I, Section 7 of the
California Constitution, and Amendment 14 of the U.S.
Constitution.)"



Help me out here; I looked up "Section 1104 Social Security Act" and this is what I found:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1140.htm

Then I looked at "Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution":

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Then at "Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution".

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14

and I couldn't find anything remotely resembling anything you've implied, could you please point them out to me.

Thanks......

ShortJohnSilver
18th February 2011, 06:23 PM
I guess this guy came to the same conclusion.
www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/socsec1.htm (http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/socsec1.htm)

" Did not reveal and disclose the truth that, upon obtaining a
Social Security Number, a white natural born State Citizen
would lose his primary State Citizenship, Privileges and
Immunities and become a business entity, under Social
Security, and an enfranchised person, under the 14th
Amendment, and would lose access to his Constitutional
Rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and Amendments 1
through 10; and instead he would become a federal citizen
and receive privileges and immunities which are revokable at
the pleasure of the Legislature. (See Section 1104 of the
Social Security Act, and Article I, Section 7 of the
California Constitution, and Amendment 14 of the U.S.
Constitution.)"



Help me out here; I looked up "Section 1104 Social Security Act" and this is what I found:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1140.htm


1104 not 1140

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1104.htm

Book
18th February 2011, 06:51 PM
http://rebelyogi.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/old_lady.jpg

...and one day the checks just stopped coming.

:o

Ponce
18th February 2011, 06:59 PM
Book? I am starting to believe that you are inlove with that Cuban lady hummmmmmmmm.

General of Darkness
18th February 2011, 07:03 PM
The guberment has stolen over $300K into SS from ME since I started working. So lets pencil this out.

Let's assume I live to be 85

Currently if I retire by 67 I'll get about $2,500 a month.

That = $30,000 per year
Well over 18 years that = $540,000

The issue is they're betting I don't live that long number one, and number two, I still have another 20 years left in my donations to the scam.

SS is just another way of ripping off the hard working middle class. People that don't recognize this, are completely living in denial, and this country is heading into some dark ages. This whole union b.s. is turning into a socialist vs us deal.

Low_five
18th February 2011, 07:17 PM
Thats why my attic is full of baby wipes. Peak wipes happened in 08 and I doubt any of you are prepared as well as I am. Shtf is going to punch you almost back to the 1800s, while I will be wiping with high tech 1970s technology.

po boy
19th February 2011, 03:54 AM
The guberment has stolen over $300K into SS from ME since I started working. So lets pencil this out.

Let's assume I live to be 85

Currently if I retire by 67 I'll get about $2,500 a month.

That = $30,000 per year
Well over 18 years that = $540,000

The issue is they're betting I don't live that long number one, and number two, I still have another 20 years left in my donations to the scam.


SS is just another way of ripping off the hard working middle class. People that don't recognize this, are completely living in denial, and this country is heading into some dark ages. This whole union b.s. is turning into a socialist vs us deal.


Makes you wonder why anyone would want to volunteer into SS.
Just the fact people join without understanding what a true PONZI scheme it is.
How much better off would people be if they were able to keep that portion of their labor, it would be like getting a raise the boss couldn't afford or was to cheap to give.

Just think freedom to be able to use the fruit of your labor how you best saw fit.
I'd wadge that you could invest those funds with a ROI greater than SS ever could.
I think many are very aware of the scam and would love to opt out but are unaware how.

po boy
19th February 2011, 04:07 AM
I guess this guy came to the same conclusion.
www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/socsec1.htm (http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/socsec1.htm)

" Did not reveal and disclose the truth that, upon obtaining a
Social Security Number, a white natural born State Citizen
would lose his primary State Citizenship, Privileges and
Immunities and become a business entity, under Social
Security, and an enfranchised person, under the 14th
Amendment, and would lose access to his Constitutional
Rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and Amendments 1
through 10; and instead he would become a federal citizen
and receive privileges and immunities which are revokable at
the pleasure of the Legislature. (See Section 1104 of the
Social Security Act, and Article I, Section 7 of the
California Constitution, and Amendment 14 of the U.S.
Constitution.)"



I understand and agree, but try to get a job without the card. :boohoo


All those border jumpers don't seem to have a problem. It's a catch 22 for sure.

Hell even with the mark of the beast(SSN) if you could find an employer who would pay in SAE or GAE you could see a drastic reduction in taxes. Instead of 30 frn's per hour ask for 1 SAE and you may not even meet the min reporting requirement.

Ash_Williams
19th February 2011, 06:41 AM
When times are good people are able to segregate their possessions and budget items and such. "I put x dollars away for retirement every month" "This was my grandmother's jewelry" etc.

When times are bad people give up on those concepts. The retirement budget gets put on hold until 'later', then the retirement fund gets dipped into, and then gramma's jewelry goes to the pawn shop.

It was a mistake to think the gov would be any different and ever be capable of keeping the SS fund separate from everything else.

Carl
19th February 2011, 08:49 AM
1104 not 1140

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1104.htm


RESERVATION OF POWER
Sec. 1104. [42 U.S.C. 1304] The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.

Sorry, still unable to grasp any connection to po boy's stated premise....


.

po boy
19th February 2011, 09:18 AM
Carl I was pointing out the quoted piece where in the guy doesn't seem to believe SS is an entitlement program,
As far as his stated belief on the 14th I do not agree.

As for me would I have signed up for SS if SS would have said hey you know you are pledging to pay into a ponzi scheme the answer is no.

As to his claim of enfranchisement well if you don't join you can't receive the benefits.

Carl
19th February 2011, 09:44 AM
Carl I was pointing out the quoted piece where in the guy doesn't seem to believe SS is an entitlement program,
As far as his stated belief on the 14th I do not agree.

As for me would I have signed up for SS if SS would have said hey you know you are pledging to pay into a ponzi scheme the answer is no.

As to his claim of enfranchisement well if you don't join you can't receive the benefits.




OH, ok sorry for my misunderstanding.

.

dys
19th February 2011, 08:14 PM
The issue is not semantics . 'Entitlement' in everyday vernacular is used by the mainstream media to insinuate unearned charity. The populace is being conditioned to view true unearned charity (welfare, food banks, etc) as synonomous with earned forced investment. They couldn't be more different.


dys



[quote=Sparky ]
It's an entitlement as soon as they put a promise into law Other than that, it's a just a word. They could "un-entitle" the promise at any point by repealing the law, if they were willing to lose all the votes it would cost them.
[/quote