Republican Tea Party Candidate goons handcuff reporter.

[joepistole]

Talk about chaff.......

joe, now just exactly how is the government going to redeem those bonds??

The people already paid once in FICA Taxes, the government spent the money, and then issued a bond from itself to itself, so please inform those of us who disagree with your premise exactly where the government is going to get the money to redeem those bonds?

There is only one place the government can get money, and that is from the Tax Payer.

or

The Government can create money with the printing press, and we are already seen what happens with that......inflation.

So where is the Government going to get the money? Especially since we already have a National Debt of;

$13,727,147,399,038.59​

Ahh poor mr. roam, bottom line, private contractual rights hold no weight compared to AAA rated government obligations.

Government needs to restructure Social Security and the American health industry of that there is no question. But Republicans/Tea Partiers are completely devoid of equitable or financially sound solutions.

Two, private contractual obligations that you keep touting as the solution are worse than government backed solutions as previoulsy pointed out. You keep engaging in errors of logic, trying to equate public and private finances...back to the old apples and horses comparisons.

Governments can increase taxes and governments can print money. Yes there are economic consequences if government increases taxes or prints money. But there are also economic consequences if the government fails to make good on its promises. You focus on the ant in the road and totally ignore the semi that is 3 seconds away from your annihilation.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Mr. joepistole, how will the government redeem the bonds, a pesky little detail to you but, how will the government redeem the bonds, they were already paid for once?

Another pesky little detail Mr. pistole.......

1937 -- Volume 301 -- HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 US 619​

Just one more pesky little detail..........

1960 -- Volume 363 -- FLEMMING V. NESTOR, 363 US 603​

Yes, the New Deal, really should be called the New Steal, ponzi scheme built upon ponzi scheme.

So Mr. joepistole how does the government redeem the bonds? they spent the money, so where do they get the money to redeem the bonds.

 

[joepistole]

Mr. joepistole, how will the government redeem the bonds, a pesky little detail to you but, how will the government redeem the bonds, they were already paid for once?

Another pesky little detail Mr. pistole.......

1937 -- Volume 301 -- HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 US 619​

Just one more pesky little detail..........

1960 -- Volume 363 -- FLEMMING V. NESTOR, 363 US 603​

Yes, the New Deal, really should be called the New Steal, ponzi scheme built upon ponzi scheme.

So Mr. joepistole how does the government redeem the bonds? they spent the money, so where do they get the money to redeem the bonds.

Can you read mr. roam? How many times do I have to repeat myself before you get it? Are you capable of getting it?

Read mr. roam:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2646735&postcount=121

And your reference to case law, as usual, is totally unrelated chaff. Bottom line, your posting has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And it has nothing to do with the current debate on Social Security.

Your previous claim that somehow private obligations were somehow better than public obligations is and remains spurious.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Can you read mr. roam? How many times do I have to repeat myself before you get it? Are you capable of getting it?

Read mr. roam:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2646735&postcount=121

And your reference to case law, as usual, is totally unrelated chaff. Bottom line, your posting has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And it has nothing to do with the current debate on Social Security.

Your previous claim that somehow private obligations were somehow better than public obligations is and remains spurious.

Ducking the facts Mr. joepistole, just more chaff from you......

Social Security isn't a insurance, it isn't a annuity, it isn't a retirement program, it is just another tax to be spent in the general fund.

Now again How Is The Government Going to redeem the Bonds In The Social security Trust Fund?????

A Bond is not money until it is redeemed, and to redeem it you have to have money, so where is the government going to get the money for a bond they issued to themselves.

 

[joepistole]

Ducking the facts Mr. joepistole, just more chaff from you......

Social Security isn't a insurance, it isn't a annuity, it isn't a retirement program, it is just another tax to be spent in the general fund.

Now again How Is The Government Going to redeem the Bonds In The Social security Trust Fund?????

A Bond is not money until it is redeemed, and to redeem it you have to have money, so where is the government going to get the money for a bond they issued to themselves.

mr. roam you are like a stuck record...ignoring everything around you and endlessly repeating yourself.

The government is going to pay its obliigations like it pays all other obligations. It is a no brainer mr. roam.

You try to support your baseless claims with a never ending stream of strawmen. The issue is not a question of what a bond is or is not. Here is a news flash for you mr. roam (a flash that has been shown to you before), not only does the government issue bonds to itself, it also buys its own debt. It owes money to itself. Now feast on that for a while.

The government is NOT a private entity. It is not bound by the rules that constrain individuals. So to make comparisons as you have done and continue to do - comparing government finances to private finances is just a farce reflecting how little you know. And claiming as you have done that private debt is somehow better that public debt is just yet again another example of you and your fellow Tea Partiers flying in the face of evidence and history. We don't have to look far to find evidence of privately held debt causing a near complete global melt down (e.g. Lehman Brothers, AIG, Citi, etc.).

Citing court cases which afirm the right of the government to enforce taxes is not relevant to the issue at hand. It is just more meaningless chaff from you to deflect focus on the weakness of your many spurious claims.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

mr. roam you are like a stuck record...ignoring everything around you and endlessly repeating yourself.

The government is going to pay its obliigations like it pays all other obligations. It is a no brainer mr. roam.

You try to support your baseless claims with a never ending stream of strawmen. The issue is not a question of what a bond is or is not. Here is a news flash for you mr. roam (a flash that has been shown to you before), not only does the government issue bonds to itself, it also buys its own debt. It owes money to itself. Now feast on that for a while.

The government is NOT a private entity. It is not bound by the rules that constrain individuals. So to make comparisons as you have done and continue to do - comparing government finances to private finances is just a farce reflecting how little you know. And claiming as you have done that private debt is somehow better that public debt is just yet again another example of you and your fellow Tea Partiers flying in the face of evidence and history. We don't have to look far to find evidence of privately held debt causing a near complete global melt down (e.g. Lehman Brothers, AIG, Citi, etc.).

Citing court cases which afirm the right of the government to enforce taxes is not relevant to the issue at hand. It is just more meaningless chaff from you to deflect focus on the weakness of your many spurious claims.

And you are a stuck record of worship at the alter of the Demi God, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the High Priest of the Democrat Orthodoxy, and the hymn, the Republicans are at fault for all the sins of the world, and the Democrats are the sweetness and divine light of salvation.

Mr. joepistole, you are right they did affirm the right of the government to collect taxes, and that FICA was nothing more than a Tax, and in that ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that Social Security, was not a Insurance, a Annuity, or a Retirement Plan, and contained no contractual right to any of the money collect because the money collect was a Tax.

Yes. Mr joepistole, nothing but chaff from you.

 

[joepistole]

And you are a stuck record of worship at the alter of the Demi God, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the High Priest of the Democrat Orthodoxy, and the hymn, the Republicans are at fault for all the sins of the world, and the Democrats are the sweetness and divine light of salvation.

LOL, ok another excuse to go off the deep end. You are creating strawmen again. Just because you imagine that FDR was a demi God, it does not make him one. Just because you imagine Obama to be the messiah it does not mean he is or even claims to be the messiah. You are setting up false positions and then making claims against them.

Bottom line mr. roam, it is another in a long series of lies from you.

Mr. joepistole, you are right they did affirm the right of the government to collect taxes, and that FICA was nothing more than a Tax, and in that ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that Social Security, was not a Insurance, a Annuity, or a Retirement Plan, and contained no contractual right to any of the money collect because the money collect was a Tax.

Yes. Mr joepistole, nothing but chaff from you.

Facts that disprove your claims are not chaff mr. roam. They are just facts that you would prefer not to see.

And none of this has anything to do with your claim that private debt/obligations are more sound than public debt/obligations.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

LOL, ok another excuse to go off the deep end. You are creating strawmen again. Just because you imagine that FDR was a demi God, it does not make him one. Just because you imagine Obama to be the messiah it does not mean he is or even claims to be the messiah. You are setting up false positions and then making claims against them.

Bottom line mr. roam, it is another in a long series of lies from you.


Facts that disprove your claims are not chaff mr. roam. They are just facts that you would prefer not to see.

And none of this has anything to do with your claim that private debt/obligations are more sound than public debt/obligations.

No, Mr. joepistole is isn't I who treats FDR as a Demi God, and his New Deal Cannon as a orthodoxy, it is you and the rest of the Neo Democrats.

Fact Mr. joepistole, and what do you call a Supreme Court Decision?

Tell Me Mr. joepistole, if some one offered you a retirement, that you had to pay into until you were 65, and that the money once paid was their to spend as they wished, and the terms of the program was that at any time they could decide to change the terms, under which you could retire, raise the age, decide that your political beliefs were improper, or decide that you did something to offend them, and they could keep the money, would you partake of that retirement program?

Would you invest in a retirement program where the agency who set up the retirement program, spent the money and then issued a bond from it's self to it's self as replacement for your money?

That is exactly what FDR and the Democrats created in the New Deal Social Security Program.

And the Supreme Court points this out very clearly in their Decision, quite plainly they tell the Tax Payer you have no right to any moneys in the Social Security Trust Fund.

 

[keith1]

The "New Deal" came after the "Banking System Collapse". Therefore, it is not at the heart of the problem, but a life raft devised after the collapse.

Quibbling over the design of the life raft, while the larger ship lies on the sea floor (for a second time, if that is not embarrassing enough predicament for a boneheaded culture, as this one surely must be), remains the folly forum-work of the unmercifully daft.

Don't waste your time Buffalo, on pursuing this misguided itch of vendetta, because you only scratch the minor surface of that which lies deeper than your eyes are willing to survey. There will be no cure found from the likes of yourself. Only more cowbell.

 

[joepistole]

No, Mr. joepistole is isn't I who treats FDR as a Demi God, and his New Deal Cannon as a orthodoxy, it is you and the rest of the Neo Democrats.

You are not making sense with all this talk of FDR and demigod. No one but extremist such as yourself are even making the claim. And two, it is false and entirely irrelevant to the issues at hand. It is more fear mongering by limbaugh, levin et al.

Much of the New Deal is an has been dead for more than a half century. What FDR did do was show leadership, something the nation sorely needs today. What FDR did do was show courage...courage to do new things to solve the nations current ills. That is not orthodoxy mr. roam.

Fact Mr. joepistole, and what do you call a Supreme Court Decision?

A Supreme Court decision reafirming the right of congress to tax is hardly Earth shaking. Taxation is how government pays for things like your salary; your retirement; and your medical benefits mr. roam.

Tell Me Mr. joepistole, if some one offered you a retirement, that you had to pay into until you were 65, and that the money once paid was their to spend as they wished, and the terms of the program was that at any time they could decide to change the terms, under which you could retire, raise the age, decide that your political beliefs were improper, or decide that you did something to offend them, and they could keep the money, would you partake of that retirement program?

Would you invest in a retirement program where the agency who set up the retirement program, spent the money and then issued a bond from it's self to it's self as replacement for your money?

That is exactly what FDR and the Democrats created in the New Deal Social Security Program.

And the Supreme Court points this out very clearly in their Decision, quite plainly they tell the Tax Payer you have no right to any moneys in the Social Security Trust Fund.

Welcome to reality mr. roam. That is how the private pension system works in this country. Where have you been? Oh yes, in the employ of government. Where by the way, Congress could and can change your pension benefits at any time. Did you think that government was paying into a pension fund while you were working? No it was not. Not only is your Social Security dependent on the general fund, so is your government pension mr. roam.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

You are not making sense with all this talk of FDR and demigod. No one but extremist such as yourself are even making the claim. And two, it is false and entirely irrelevant to the issues at hand. It is more fear mongering by limbaugh, levin et al.

Much of the New Deal is an has been dead for more than a half century. What FDR did do was show leadership, something the nation sorely needs today. What FDR did do was show courage...courage to do new things to solve the nations current ills. That is not orthodoxy mr. roam.


A Supreme Court decision reafirming the right of congress to tax is hardly Earth shaking. Taxation is how government pays for things like your salary; your retirement; and your medical benefits mr. roam.


Welcome to reality mr. roam. That is how the private pension system works in this country. Where have you been? Oh yes, in the employ of government. Where by the way, Congress could and can change your pension benefits at any time. Did you think that government was paying into a pension fund while you were working? No it was not. Not only is your Social Security dependent on the general fund, so is your government pension mr. roam.

Mr. joe pistole, your arguments come down to chaff, Lies, and accusations of being a Ditto Head, but you never acknowledge that the information is from Supreme Court Rulings and has been enforced countless time.

As to fear mongering, no Mr. joepistole, just statements of facts, and reality.

Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc......could take lessons from you on the subject of fear mongering, yes, Mr. joepistole screaming through the forum......the sky is falling!!!!....the Sky is Falling!!!!!.......the people have changed the balance of power and my world is crashing in around me!!!!!

Again, you have spun what was said in the Decision, and only looked at a small narrow part of the whole decission......like the part in HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U. S. 619 (1937)
that states;

6. The problem of security for the aged, like the general problem of unemployment, is national, as well as local. Cf. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, ante, p. 301 U. S. 548. P. 301 U. S. 644.

And then uses the decision from

STEWARD MACH. CO. V. COLLECTOR, 301 U. S. 548 (1937)

4. The proceeds of the tax imposed on employers by Title IX of the Social Security Act, supra, go into the Treasury of the United States without earmark, like internal revenue collections generally.........

So, Mr. joepistole, where is the government going to get the money to redeem the Bond in the supposed Social Security Trust Fund Lock Box.

The money was put into the general funds, and spent as general revenue, to pay current expenses, and any proceed left over were disbursed to other government programs, and the government issued a bond from it's self to it's self, you cannot be indebted to yourself.

 

[joepistole]

Mr. joe pistole, your arguments come down to chaff, Lies, and accusations of being a Ditto Head, but you never acknowledge that the information is from Supreme Court Rulings and has been enforced countless time.

You are still not making sense my dear mr. roam. If my arguements are lies, then you should be able to easily refute them...something you have failed to do despite your numerous posts. If fact, you have yet to directly address any of the arguements and facts I have put forward. Instead you offer chaff and diversion...which is what you always offer.

You have not supported your claim that private obligations are somehow better than public obligations. As your defense you offer a court case reafirming the right of government to tax...which is not the issue. That is something no one is arguing mr. roam....stick to the issue which is your claim that private obligations are better more secure than public obligations.

As to fear mongering, no Mr. joepistole, just statements of facts, and reality.

Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc......could take lessons from you on the subject of fear mongering, yes, Mr. joepistole screaming through the forum......the sky is falling!!!!....the Sky is Falling!!!!!.......the people have changed the balance of power and my world is crashing in around me!!!!!

Well if that is the case, then prove it. Of course, we both know you won't becuase you cannot.

Again, you have spun what was said in the Decision, and only looked at a small narrow part of the whole decission......like the part in HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U. S. 619 (1937)
that states;

6. The problem of security for the aged, like the general problem of unemployment, is national, as well as local. Cf. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, ante, p. 301 U. S. 548. P. 301 U. S. 644.

And then uses the decision from

STEWARD MACH. CO. V. COLLECTOR, 301 U. S. 548 (1937)

4. The proceeds of the tax imposed on employers by Title IX of the Social Security Act, supra, go into the Treasury of the United States without earmark, like internal revenue collections generally.........

So, Mr. joepistole, where is the government going to get the money to redeem the Bond in the supposed Social Security Trust Fund Lock Box.

The money was put into the general funds, and spent as general revenue, to pay current expenses, and any proceed left over were disbursed to other government programs, and the government issued a bond from it's self to it's self, you cannot be indebted to yourself.

I repeat, where is the government going to get the money to pay for your pension mr. roam? The general fund...the same general fund that is used to pay all obligations of the Federal government.

And where does the government get money for the general fund, taxes mr. roam. It really is that simple.

No if the money in the Social Security Trust fund was invested in private securities; you, limbaugh, levin, hannity, et al would be screaming socialism. You cannot have it both ways mr. roam.

And the bottom line, for Social Security participants, a public obligation is much more secure than a obligation from a private enterprise.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

You are still not making sense my dear mr. roam. If my arguements are lies, then you should be able to easily refute them...something you have failed to do despite your numerous posts. If fact, you have yet to directly address any of the arguements and facts I have put forward. Instead you offer chaff and diversion...which is what you always offer.

You have not supported your claim that private obligations are somehow better than public obligations. As your defense you offer a court case reafirming the right of government to tax...which is not the issue. That is something no one is arguing mr. roam....stick to the issue which is your claim that private obligations are better more secure than public obligations.



Well if that is the case, then prove it. Of course, we both know you won't becuase you cannot.


I repeat, where is the government going to get the money to pay for your pension mr. roam? The general fund...the same general fund that is used to pay all obligations of the Federal government.

And where does the government get money for the general fund, taxes mr. roam. It really is that simple.

No if the money in the Social Security Trust fund was invested in private securities; you, limbaugh, levin, hannity, et al would be screaming socialism. You cannot have it both ways mr. roam.

And the bottom line, for Social Security participants, a public obligation is much more secure than a obligation from a private enterprise.

No Mr. joepistole, it is you who do not make sense, because you don't want to make sense, or actually, that you are incapable of making sense.

 

[joepistole]

No Mr. joepistole, it is you who do not make sense, because you don't want to make sense, or actually, that you are incapable of making sense.

What is so hard for you to understand mr. roam? Your claim that somehow private obligations are more secure than government obligations just flies in the face of history and has no basis in logic or fact. Bottom line, it is just another in a long line of Republican talking points which you dutifully repeat but cannot defend.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

What is so hard for you to understand mr. roam? Your claim that somehow private obligations are more secure than government obligations just flies in the face of history and has no basis in logic or fact. Bottom line, it is just another in a long line of Republican talking points which you dutifully repeat but cannot defend.

Mr. joepistole, the Supreme Court ruled it so, I make no claim, I just point out the fact.

Talking points? again Supreme Court Case Law, settled case law.

Again;

flies in the face of history and has no basis in logic or fact​

We have Supreme Court Case Law;

1960 -- Volume 363 -- FLEMMING V. NESTOR, 363 US 603​

In the decission the Court ruled that there is no obligation, such as would be under a civil contract.

These cases are:

Steward Machine
v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619
(1937); and Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960). These cases
clearly enunciate the position of the Supreme Court on the Social
Security Act and the actual legal position of those who expect to
receive benefits from it. Highlights of these cases are as
follows:

1. The payroll deductions of workers do NOT go into a pool
or trust fund, but:

"The proceeds of both (the employee and the employer) taxes
are to be paid into the treasury like other internal revenue
generally, and are NOT earmarked in any way."

[Helvering v. Davis, U.S. 619, 635 (1937)]


2. The Court points out that payroll deductions of American
workers are NOT payments on premiums for insurance of any kind,
but are simply income taxes:

"... eligibility for benefits ... (does) not in any true
sense depend on contribution through the payment of taxes."

[Flemming v. Davis, 363 U.S. 603, 609 (1960)]

3. Furthermore, payments made by employers for each of their
employees are NOT matching to be credited to the account of the
employee, but constitute an EXCISE TAX on the employer's right to
do business. Consequently, his so-called "contributions" go
directly into the general fund of the treasury.


4. People participating in Social Security payroll deductions
do NOT acquire property rights or contractual rights through
their payments, as they would if they were paying on an insurance
policy or contributing to an annuity plan. Simply put, there are
no guarantees! The Congress does have power to deny benefits to
citizens even, though they had paid S.S. taxes. Also, the amounts
of benefits granted are at the option of Congress. Flemming v.
Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610 (1960).


5. Benefits granted under Social Security are therefore NOT
considered earned by the worker, but simply constitute a gratuity
or gesture of charity. As the Court states:

"Congress included in the original Act, and has since
retained a claim expressly reserving to it the right to
alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the Act".

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mcdonald/vol1-8.htm

 

[joepistole]

None of that is related to the topic at hand mr. roam. No one is arguing the law. The law is clear.

The bottom line is you cannot support your claim that a private obligation is somehow more secure than a public obligation.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2648194&postcount=136

Social Security is very much like your federal pension...dependent on the largess of Congress and the general fund.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

None of that is related to the topic at hand mr. roam. No one is arguing the law. The law is clear.

The bottom line is you cannot support your claim that a private obligation is somehow more secure than a public obligation.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2648194&postcount=136

Social Security is very much like your federal pension...dependent on the largess of Congress and the general fund.

Mr. joepistole the law is very clear, you and I have no contractual right to any of the money collected for social security, and the government is under no obligation to pay any such retirement.

Point of fact, Social Security is not a Insurance, Annuity, or a Retirement Plan, and carries no contractual obligations as such.

4. People participating in Social Security payroll deductions
do NOT acquire property rights or contractual rights through
their payments, as they would if they were paying on an insurance
policy or contributing to an annuity plan. Simply put, there are
no guarantees! The Congress does have power to deny benefits to
citizens even, though they had paid S.S. taxes. Also, the amounts
of benefits granted are at the option of Congress. Flemming v.
Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610 (1960).

 

[spidergoat]

Social security funds should be in a lockbox, but guess who you guys made fun of when he suggested it.

 

[sifreak21]

And until the good Lord shuts me up, I am going to exercise my right to free speech. And I am going to do my damndest to protect this country from those who would do it harm.

your single opinion in the long run regaurdless of what ppl say is nothing but fresh air, BUT if thats your thing more power to you. but as for your "free speech" we have no free speech i dont know where your getting this from

 

[joepistole]

Mr. joepistole the law is very clear, you and I have no contractual right to any of the money collected for social security, and the government is under no obligation to pay any such retirement.

Point of fact, Social Security is not a Insurance, Annuity, or a Retirement Plan, and carries no contractual obligations as such.

4. People participating in Social Security payroll deductions
do NOT acquire property rights or contractual rights through
their payments, as they would if they were paying on an insurance
policy or contributing to an annuity plan. Simply put, there are
no guarantees! The Congress does have power to deny benefits to
citizens even, though they had paid S.S. taxes. Also, the amounts
of benefits granted are at the option of Congress. Flemming v.
Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610 (1960).

Social Security is a law made by Congress which entitles some people to specified benefits....just like your federal pension mr. roam. And Congress can change the law affecting both at anytime. Your federal pension is no more secure nor any less secure than Social Security and Medicare is mr. roam.