Conservatives Hate Obama More Than They Love America

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by DalekSec

The Soc Sec system would work fine if we died at 70 and had more kids.

Nope, it would still inevitably spiral into oblivion because it is a ponzi scheme in all sense of the term. The original scam was an investment scam. The guy would take money from investors but rather than invest he, he'd simply spend it on himself. When it came time to pay up, he'd simply look for more investors and use some of the money to pay off the previous ones and then spend the rest on himself.

This is EXACTLY how social security works except the government enjoys the advantage of being able to force you to pay into it. They don't even have to fool you! They just take your money and spend it however they want and when it comes time to pay, they take it from others. The problem is the same as the original scam: The cost to sustain it grows with each cycle and that's exactly what's happening to yours. It has promised money that it won't be able to pay.

[genderhazard]

There is no general legal requirement that individuals join the Social Security program.

Also in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legal right to Social Security: Congress can cut or eliminate Social Security benefits at any time regardless of a worker's contributions.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

There is no general legal requirement that individuals join the Social Security program.

No legal requirement to reap the benefits but there is to pay into it. It's called taxes.

More details here

[genderhazard]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

No legal requirement to reap the benefits but there is to pay into it. It's called taxes.

Exactly. From the Social security web site.

Question
Can I opt out of Social Security?

Can I withdraw taxes that I have paid for Social Security coverage?

Answer

No.

The law also does not permit a refund of Social Security taxes. The authority for the collection of taxes, including Social Security taxes, is found in the Internal Revenue Code, not the Social Security Act. (See sections 3101(a) and 3102(a) of the Code.) We suggest that you direct any questions you may have about tax liability to that Agency for consideration. The address is:

Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20224.

As part of the 1939 Amendments, the Title VIII taxing provisions were taken out of the Social Security Act and placed in the Internal Revenue Code.

The 1935 Social Security Act http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html#TITLE I

This law established two social insurance programs on a national scale to help meet the risks of old age and unemployment:

a Federal system of old-age benefits for retired workers who had been employed in industry and commerce, and a Federal-State system of unemployment insurance.

What should be an insurance premimum is a tax. One I can't opt out of and am not assured payment.

Ain't government wonderful.

And BOHICA with Health care reform.

[TrunKated]

Originally Posted by Vincent Van Grow

Conservatives... What are they conserving? Not nature. Not ecology. Not freedom. Not people's health. Not sanity. (See Glenn Beck.) No, they only want to conserve money. And usually it's not even their own. It's their masters. Only money. It's all an excuse to be greedy. All rationalization to be greedy and prejudiced. Just my humble opinion.

Van Grow, that IS a bit simplistic, but I think you do have a point, and Daleksec's rant after reinforces it, as far as I'm concerned. You can go on and on about how global warming is either not real or it's just cyclical, but Man has at least contributed to it, and we should TRY to do something about it, in any case, IMHO.

Now, why don't conservatives want to conserve the environment and
liberty? Maybe they did once. Yes, DS, maybe real conservatives still do. But I think current conservatives are pretty twisted. The neocon's agenda does seem to be ONLY about conserving money and power and not much. Maybe conserve the second amendment, but toss the others in the trash. (although I seem to remember guns being confiscated under W.)

Here's an example of pseudo-Conservative conservation, the Free Speech or First Amendment Zone. Under W, protesters had to be herded several blocks away from W's speeches into a fenced area.






Under Obama, not only are protesters allowed closer, but some have
gotten away with openly carrying guns.







So, sometimes, it's the liberals who are really the conservatives. And, yes, liberals can be selfish at times. It's human nature. But it's smart to be selfish in protecting human rights and the environment, not just your lust for greed and power. I guess it's just a more balanced approach.

[genderhazard]

Trunkated

ROTFLMAO

Originally Posted by TrunKated

Here's an example of pseudo-Conservative conservation, the Free Speech or First Amendment Zone. Under W, protesters had to be herded several blocks away from W's speeches into a fenced area.

you do realize that those free speech zone photos are from the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up an official "free speech area" so the convention would not be disrupted.



But don't let facts stop you.


I believe the expression is "You just got pwned!"

[Sephie]

Statements made by individual conservatives do not nescessarily reflect the opinion of all conservatives. Statements such as the one present in the title of this thread do not represent all liberals. Please do not make blanket statements.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Such blanket statements can still, however, be worth discussing.

[Sephie]

All Houstonians are liars.

[genderhazard]

even Sam Houston?

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Blondes have more fun.

And gingers have no souls. Whoops! I can't say that!

[LOD]

All process posters like women.....