My year end Thank you to the President and Congress

[Boomchild]

You're wrong and listen to too much propaganda. Socialists do not support Obama's policies at all.

Please supply me an example of a known socialist that has spoken negatively about what Obama is doing.

Yawn. That story is so old. Again, none of this 'redistribution' has happened. In fact what HAS happened is taking tax dollars to bail out corporations...taking from us all and giving it to the rich. Probably not the type of redistribution you are talking about.

Didn't say that this is happening now. The point is he said this is WHAT HE BELIEVES IN. It's shows where his political head is. This is what he is aiming for. The government being in financial control and distributing it as it sees fit.

You could make the same claim about any President, while he was President. Yeah, that Washington dude, he just hasn't shown his true colors yet. Just wait until he gets a taste of true power...he'll never give it up. He'll be this countries Napoleon.

Maybe you could. It does fit Obama very nicely though. I wonder if they will have "Yes We Can" arm bands for all of us to wear. Except for the "rich people" of course. They'll get to wear special patches with a dollar sign on it.

[Boomchild]

If you want to blame Obama for something, fine, make it something he's responsible for...like putting so much effort into health care before the economy was fixed. But, blaming him for the contents of a budget congress passes is just simply ignorant and seems to be coming from a "blame him for everything" attitude.

Captain of the ship.

[Boomchild]

He's a step behind............ In fact, he's walking backwards. People are not gonna put their arms in such a place where they can be easily confiscated and I'd hate to see what will happen to those who will try. Any WWII veteran will have already taught his offspring how to effectively secure their arms.

The U.s. Military has already admitted that they have conducted military training operations on domestic gun confiscation. That should tell you something.

[steveo777]

He's a step behind............ In fact, he's walking backwards. People are not gonna put their arms in such a place where they can be easily confiscated and I'd hate to see what will happen to those who will try. Any WWII veteran will have already taught his offspring how to effectively secure their arms.

The U.s. Military has already admitted that they have conducted military training operations on domestic gun confiscation. That should tell you something.

This is news to me. Please provide proof. I think by now that a door to door campaign would be futile, especially if news gets out of any single neighborhold being raided. They would have to effectively cut off any and all communication before even a half assed raid could be conducted. We have too many armed Americans for that to happen. Let's keep it that way. BTW, the fact that these conversations are taking place here or anywhere, let alone the fact that guns and ammo are flying off the shelves in record numbers, ought to give us pause. It smells like something ugly is coming.

[Memorex]

He's a step behind............ In fact, he's walking backwards. People are not gonna put their arms in such a place where they can be easily confiscated and I'd hate to see what will happen to those who will try. Any WWII veteran will have already taught his offspring how to effectively secure their arms.

The U.s. Military has already admitted that they have conducted military training operations on domestic gun confiscation. That should tell you something.

This is news to me. Please provide proof. I think by now that a door to door campaign would be futile, especially if news gets out of any single neighborhold being raided. They would have to effectively cut off any and all communication before even a half assed raid could be conducted. We have too many armed Americans for that to happen. Let's keep it that way. BTW, the fact that these conversations are taking place here or anywhere, let alone the fact that guns and ammo are flying off the shelves in record numbers, ought to give us pause. It smells like something ugly is coming.

How Will They Confiscate Your Guns?

by John A. Sutter
in California

For decades I have heard gun owners claim that the government would never be able to confiscate our firearms because the government would lose too many men. The implication being, of course, that gun owners would actively resist confiscation, even to the point of shooting back. But I believe this thinking is outdated and doesn’t align very well with reality. But before you tell me how big your honor guard in Hell will be when that day comes, let’s think about how the government could really do it.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the government bans all civilian possession of firearms at the end of this month. Congress passes a total ban and the President cuts his own re-election throat by signing it. Gun owners get some grace period to turn them in, even beyond the deadline, without being charged with a crime. If we use Australia and Britain as examples there will still be a significant number of firearms that are not turned in. Some estimates put the Australian turn-in at less than 25% and the British faired only about 28%. But Australians and the British have long been used to obeying almost every gun control law. Not so the Americans. When laws are passed that we don’t like, we bite. We scratch. We vote. So here we sit after the guns have been collected and the amnesties have run out. Now what? Send out the personnel carriers, swat and shock troops to seize the guns from those militia “terrorists” who refused to turn them in? Don’t be silly.

The government has lots of records about you. If you purchased a firearm since 1968, chances are that they have some record of it somewhere. Most likely, it will take quite some time for them to compile all the serial numbers of “surrendered” guns (surrendered essentially at gunpoint) and cross off the ones you turned in. It’ll take more time for them to attempt to “clean up” their data. Say, about two years, maybe three. Add to that the hordes of people keypunching in hundreds of thousands of sales and registration records from hundreds of gun stores forced out of business. At some point the government decides they have something approaching a “good” database of unaccounted-for guns.

The next thing you’ll get from the government is an official looking notice that they think you still have a firearm. Their information will probably include all the information from registration forms, right down to the serial number. That notice will tell you that you’re in violation of the law, subject to prosecution and imprisonment. It will give you some period of time to surrender the gun. It will also give you a very limited number of days to return the form with an explanation of why you don’t have the gun, any proof you have, and your signature that the gun was lawfully disposed of. For many people the idea that the government “knows” they didn’t turn in that pistol or rifle and they have the detailed information about it will be enough to get them to surrender the gun. Some people will ignore the letter, others will scrawl a note that “I sold this in 1982 in a private sale”. After some time, the government will figure out how many guns are still out there and what the “compliance rate” is with the gun ban. More importantly, they’ll start sorting their database by the number of guns someone supposedly has “unaccounted”.

If you think they’ll come at these multiple-gun owners with a swat team, guess again. Their most likely tactic will be yet another letter (maybe two more) that generate what they’ll call “insufficient responses”. That means they can’t track a gun after you owned it. This they’ll use as fodder for a search warrant and/or perjury charges at a later date if they can. My guess is that the time between April and August will be a bad time for a lot of “former” gun owners. Remember that the BATF is an arm of the Treasury department and they control the IRS. You’ll probably get a notice in the mail that the IRS has some questions about your taxes or wants to audit you. When you make the appointment to visit the IRS they will pass that information to the BATF. While you are sweating over your deductions, the BATF and local police will execute a search warrant and search your home looking for guns. With you safely off site and distracted, essentially forced into “the royal presence” of the IRS they will snag your guns. Expect them to use slow-scan and ground penetrating radar to search walls, yards, under the patio or deck, the basement, etc. You might even find your hot tub has been drained and moved. Yes, they’ll search your car in the IRS parking lot too.

If you are one of the those people they suspect of having multiple guns and they don’t find any guns at your home, expect them to find and search storage facilities, safety deposit boxes and other places you might use. Warn your relatives who live nearby that they can expect a visit too, even (or perhaps especially) if they never owned a gun. If they are thorough, I’d expect the government agents to check your neighbors to see which of them previously owned a gun and perhaps search their homes, arguing that your neighbor could have held your guns while agents searched your home. Remember that at this point the government authorities don’t have much to fear from the general population. And by the time your complaints are run through the mill, rejected and turned into lawsuits, they’ll have changed the rules.

But you only have one gun you say? Fine. They won’t come looking for it. But they will make sure that possession of ammunition is also a serious crime. Don’t leave any loose cartridges around and where will you hide that case of ammo you rushed out to buy? Expect any “gun parts” to be made illegal at some point in time too. Spare magazines, maybe even old cleaning kits. Anything that says “gun” will be interpreted as “probable cause” to search your entire home. Also expect that you can never use that gun without becoming a serious felon in the eyes of the government. Even if some thug has repeatedly stabbed you with a large knife and threatened to rape your six year old daughter, they won’t forgive you for having the gun. They may even give you extra penalties for using it to save your family. Especially if you are one of the first few hundred people caught this way, they will use you to “set an example”. This will cause people to “bury” their guns away in hiding places, making them all but useless. If the government does come to confiscate it, you won’t be able to get to it fast enough and they will probably find it.

You’ve moved several times since you bought a gun? Remember showing your ID when you bought a gun? Remember writing down your place of birth? Why do you think the government has so many computers? Linking you to your new driver’s license in another state shouldn’t be too hard. Besides, the Treasury folks know where you work. Think you’re safe because you had unregistered guns? Think again. I would expect that the government’s database will contain a lot of old data. Some of it might indicate that a gun was sold to a resident at your address. If they can tie you to ammo sales or range use with your credit card in the previous 2 years you might get a surprise visit. Or that seller might have remembered you bought that gun from him and filled out his gun notice to get “off the hook” for that gun.

The point of this article is that by thinking in limited terms of a “raid” to confiscate guns we lose sight of the alternative methods the government can use. Put yourself in the government’s position and think of your own methods to avoid a conflict. Meanwhile, let’s ensure that every gun owner votes for gun rights this year and the next. You can think of a thousand excuses not to vote, not to help a campaign, not to help another gun owner register to vote. I can think of one important reason to do all of those.

Liberty!

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=327

[Monker]

If you want to blame Obama for something, fine, make it something he's responsible for...like putting so much effort into health care before the economy was fixed. But, blaming him for the contents of a budget congress passes is just simply ignorant and seems to be coming from a "blame him for everything" attitude.

Captain of the ship.

Dude, it's not a dictatorship. If it is, prove to me how he controls congress.

Blame the President for things in his control.

[Monker]

You're wrong and listen to too much propaganda. Socialists do not support Obama's policies at all.

Please supply me an example of a known socialist that has spoken negatively about what Obama is doing.

I did not say they speak negatively of him...I said they don't support his policies. A simple Google proves this so easily.

Greg Pason, National Secretary of the Socialist Party USA: “Barack Obama’s programs are not socialist. The vast majority of his proposals are anti-worker (or he might say ‘pro-business’). His health care proposals are more to save the for-profit insurance industry and do not have the goal of ending for-profit insurance. He has refused to support a Senate version of HR676, which would create a single-payer program (not socialist but much better than we have, and [which has] the support of labor and community organizations across the US). Many of his other economic proposals are pro-corporate.

A socialist program (even a reformist one) would not be a program that props up capitalism when it fails, but one that transforms the economy. None of Senator Obama’s proposals do that. Senator Obama’s tax plan is regressive and even less ‘progressive’ than programs put forward under such conservative administrations like the one of Richard Nixon.”

F.N. Brill, National Secretary of the World Socialist Party (US): “Obama is as much a socialist as the Pope is an atheist. Income redistribution isn’t a socialist act. It might aid in ameliorating income disparities within a capitalist economy for a limited time. But the logic of capitalism demands the rich grow richer (more capitalization is needed) and the poor grow poorer (their work creates the needed capital used by the rich).”

David Schaich, Socialist Party Campaign Clearinghouse Coordinator: “The idea that Barack Obama is socialist, or quasi-socialist, or semi-socialist, or socialist-light, or anything of the sort, is far-right nonsense. Barack Obama, like John McCain, is very much a ‘politician as usual,’fully committed to the continuation of the capitalist system and the expansion of its empire.”

Didn't say that this is happening now. The point is he said this is WHAT HE BELIEVES IN. It's shows where his political head is. This is what he is aiming for. The government being in financial control and distributing it as it sees fit.

Actions speak louder then words. One sentence from 10yrs ago, or whenever, means very little compared to four years of history that proves that people who make this argument are full of shit.

You could make the same claim about any President, while he was President. Yeah, that Washington dude, he just hasn't shown his true colors yet. Just wait until he gets a taste of true power...he'll never give it up. He'll be this countries Napoleon.

Maybe you could.

Of course you could. It's just made up bullshit fiction. That is what you are posting.

[Boomchild]

If you want to blame Obama for something, fine, make it something he's responsible for...like putting so much effort into health care before the economy was fixed. But, blaming him for the contents of a budget congress passes is just simply ignorant and seems to be coming from a "blame him for everything" attitude.

Captain of the ship.

Dude, it's not a dictatorship. If it is, prove to me how he controls congress.

Blame the President for things in his control.

Captain of the ship.

[Boomchild]

I did not say they speak negatively of him...I said they don't support his policies. A simple Google proves this so easily.

Greg Pason, National Secretary of the Socialist Party USA: “Barack Obama’s programs are not socialist. The vast majority of his proposals are anti-worker (or he might say ‘pro-business’). His health care proposals are more to save the for-profit insurance industry and do not have the goal of ending for-profit insurance. He has refused to support a Senate version of HR676, which would create a single-payer program (not socialist but much better than we have, and [which has] the support of labor and community organizations across the US). Many of his other economic proposals are pro-corporate.

A socialist program (even a reformist one) would not be a program that props up capitalism when it fails, but one that transforms the economy. None of Senator Obama’s proposals do that. Senator Obama’s tax plan is regressive and even less ‘progressive’ than programs put forward under such conservative administrations like the one of Richard Nixon.”

F.N. Brill, National Secretary of the World Socialist Party (US): “Obama is as much a socialist as the Pope is an atheist. Income redistribution isn’t a socialist act. It might aid in ameliorating income disparities within a capitalist economy for a limited time. But the logic of capitalism demands the rich grow richer (more capitalization is needed) and the poor grow poorer (their work creates the needed capital used by the rich).”

David Schaich, Socialist Party Campaign Clearinghouse Coordinator: “The idea that Barack Obama is socialist, or quasi-socialist, or semi-socialist, or socialist-light, or anything of the sort, is far-right nonsense. Barack Obama, like John McCain, is very much a ‘politician as usual,’fully committed to the continuation of the capitalist system and the expansion of its empire.”

As if the Affordable health Care Act isn't a transformation of health care in the United States. Where the government is in control of it and DICTATES that everyone must purchase it. That alone shows where he is going.

Actions speak louder then words. One sentence from 10yrs ago, or whenever, means very little compared to four years of history that proves that people who make this argument are full of shit.

The number of years since he said it has no point. It shows where his head is at. He can't change everything he wants in four years. You make it sound if someone like Hitler did everything in four years.

Of course you could. It's just made up bullshit fiction. That is what you are posting.

Time will tell.

[Boomchild]

He's a step behind............ In fact, he's walking backwards. People are not gonna put their arms in such a place where they can be easily confiscated and I'd hate to see what will happen to those who will try. Any WWII veteran will have already taught his offspring how to effectively secure their arms.

The U.s. Military has already admitted that they have conducted military training operations on domestic gun confiscation. That should tell you something.

This is news to me. Please provide proof. I think by now that a door to door campaign would be futile, especially if news gets out of any single neighborhold being raided. They would have to effectively cut off any and all communication before even a half assed raid could be conducted. We have too many armed Americans for that to happen. Let's keep it that way. BTW, the fact that these conversations are taking place here or anywhere, let alone the fact that guns and ammo are flying off the shelves in record numbers, ought to give us pause. It smells like something ugly is coming.

It's part of the training for operations under Martial Law or when the President Declares the use of the military in what is deemed a national emergency.

[slucero]

He's a step behind............ In fact, he's walking backwards. People are not gonna put their arms in such a place where they can be easily confiscated and I'd hate to see what will happen to those who will try. Any WWII veteran will have already taught his offspring how to effectively secure their arms.

The U.s. Military has already admitted that they have conducted military training operations on domestic gun confiscation. That should tell you something.

This is news to me. Please provide proof. I think by now that a door to door campaign would be futile, especially if news gets out of any single neighborhold being raided. They would have to effectively cut off any and all communication before even a half assed raid could be conducted. We have too many armed Americans for that to happen. Let's keep it that way. BTW, the fact that these conversations are taking place here or anywhere, let alone the fact that guns and ammo are flying off the shelves in record numbers, ought to give us pause. It smells like something ugly is coming.

It's part of the training for operations under Martial Law or when the President Declares the use of the military in what is deemed a national emergency.

U.S. Army FM 3-19.15 Civil Disturbance Operations Manual

Field Manual (FM) 3-19.15 addresses continental United States (CONUS) and outside continental United States (OCONUS) civil disturbance operations.

http://publicintelligence.net/u-s-army- ... perations/

[The Sushi Hunter]

Before you send in the "Thank you" letter, don't forget to wipe your ass on the signature line. Nice fresh brown skid mark should get some undivided attention.

[verslibre]

[Monker]

As if the Affordable health Care Act isn't a transformation of health care in the United States. Where the government is in control of it and DICTATES that everyone must purchase it. That alone shows where he is going.

Are you ignorant of what Socialism is? Obamacare is NOT Socialism. That is not a debatable opinion. It's a simple fact. Funny how some very prominent socialists disagree with you...but don't let facts get in the way of your emotional opinion and fantasy.

The number of years since he said it has no point. It shows where his head is at. He can't change everything he wants in four years. You make it sound if someone like Hitler did everything in four years.

Oh, please, are you Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh? Nothing he has done the past four years has "redistributed wealth". Get over the propaganda and outright lies.

Of course you could. It's just made up bullshit fiction. That is what you are posting.

Time will tell.

[/quote]

And, then people like you will still say he didn't have enough time.

[AR]

2% of my salary taken away by those wasteful fuckers.

Still pissed.

[Memorex]

Nothing he has done the past four years has "redistributed wealth".

How can you possibly make this statement? Take a look at the increase in benefits given to the "poor". Not just more people being a part of systems that were in place, but newly expanded benefits. You're nutty on this one. If I had time right now, I'd point to a dozen things that prove you are wrong.

[Memorex]

2% of my salary taken away by those wasteful fuckers.

Still pissed.

I think the 2% is not something to really be all that upset about. It should have never been a decrease in the first place. It was a huge distribution of wealth ploy to cover the higher insurance premiums. If Social Security is to survive, they can't keep raiding it.

Now, if you want to argue about social security or of 6% is the right amount, that's a different argument.

[Memorex]

Uh.....

“The people of New Orleans in that area, they were hurt,” Reid said. “But nothing in comparison to what happened to the people in New York and New Jersey.”

The NOLA.com story noted that Katrina, a category five storm that devastated the Gulf Coast, killed 1,833 people and caused more than $145 billion in damage.

Hurricane Sandy, a category 1 storm that badly damaged portions of New York and New Jersey, killed 120 people and caused $80 billion in damage.

Reid being Harry Reid.

[AR]

2% of my salary taken away by those wasteful fuckers.

Still pissed.

I think the 2% is not something to really be all that upset about. It should have never been a decrease in the first place. It was a huge distribution of wealth ploy to cover the higher insurance premiums. If Social Security is to survive, they can't keep raiding it.

Now, if you want to argue about social security or of 6% is the right amount, that's a different argument.

Yeah, I don't want or need Social Security. That's how I feel. Give me that FICA money to do with as I wish.

[Memorex]

Nothing he has done the past four years has "redistributed wealth".

How can you possibly make this statement? Take a look at the increase in benefits given to the "poor". Not just more people being a part of systems that were in place, but newly expanded benefits. You're nutty on this one. If I had time right now, I'd point to a dozen things that prove you are wrong.

I guess the debate could actually be super short just by posting a quote from Obama. Seems it's me and him against you on this one.

"I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution – because I actually believe in some redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."

[Monker]

2% of my salary taken away by those wasteful fuckers.

Still pissed.

I think the 2% is not something to really be all that upset about. It should have never been a decrease in the first place. It was a huge distribution of wealth ploy to cover the higher insurance premiums. If Social Security is to survive, they can't keep raiding it.

Now, if you want to argue about social security or of 6% is the right amount, that's a different argument.

Yeah, I don't want or need Social Security. That's how I feel. Give me that FICA money to do with as I wish.

That FICA money is to pay for your parents and grandparents - not you.

Your children pay for yours, talk to them about it.

[AR]

2% of my salary taken away by those wasteful fuckers.

Still pissed.

I think the 2% is not something to really be all that upset about. It should have never been a decrease in the first place. It was a huge distribution of wealth ploy to cover the higher insurance premiums. If Social Security is to survive, they can't keep raiding it.

Now, if you want to argue about social security or of 6% is the right amount, that's a different argument.

Yeah, I don't want or need Social Security. That's how I feel. Give me that FICA money to do with as I wish.

That FICA money is to pay for your parents and grandparents - not you.

Your children pay for yours, talk to them about it.

Bad investment and a Ponzi scheme. It certainly won't be there for me or my child.

[Monker]

2% of my salary taken away by those wasteful fuckers.

Still pissed.

I think the 2% is not something to really be all that upset about. It should have never been a decrease in the first place. It was a huge distribution of wealth ploy to cover the higher insurance premiums. If Social Security is to survive, they can't keep raiding it.

Now, if you want to argue about social security or of 6% is the right amount, that's a different argument.

Yeah, I don't want or need Social Security. That's how I feel. Give me that FICA money to do with as I wish.

That FICA money is to pay for your parents and grandparents - not you.

Your children pay for yours, talk to them about it.

Bad investment and a Ponzi scheme. It certainly won't be there for me or my child.

A Ponzi scheme? That is just way exaggerating. It's an investment in seniors to ensure they are not starving homeless on the streets. If that is the way people looked at it, senior welfare, maybe those who do not need it would not be so demanding on taking it.

It may be morbid, but as the baby boomers start dying off, Social Security will be much easier to maintain. Regardless, it will be there...no politician is going to risk reelection by voting to end social security. Well, except maybe Ron Paul...don't know about him.

[AR]

2% of my salary taken away by those wasteful fuckers.

Still pissed.

I think the 2% is not something to really be all that upset about. It should have never been a decrease in the first place. It was a huge distribution of wealth ploy to cover the higher insurance premiums. If Social Security is to survive, they can't keep raiding it.

Now, if you want to argue about social security or of 6% is the right amount, that's a different argument.

Yeah, I don't want or need Social Security. That's how I feel. Give me that FICA money to do with as I wish.

That FICA money is to pay for your parents and grandparents - not you.

Your children pay for yours, talk to them about it.

Bad investment and a Ponzi scheme. It certainly won't be there for me or my child.

A Ponzi scheme? That is just way exaggerating. It's an investment in seniors to ensure they are not starving homeless on the streets. If that is the way people looked at it, senior welfare, maybe those who do not need it would not be so demanding on taking it.

It may be morbid, but as the baby boomers start dying off, Social Security will be much easier to maintain. Regardless, it will be there...no politician is going to risk reelection by voting to end social security. Well, except maybe Ron Paul...don't know about him.

I hope you are right, but I just don't see it. The disgraceful government is already talking about going after people's 401K's. My distrust for our elected officials knows no bounds.

[Boomchild]

Are you ignorant of what Socialism is? Obamacare is NOT Socialism. That is not a debatable opinion. It's a simple fact. Funny how some very prominent socialists disagree with you...but don't let facts get in the way of your emotional opinion and fantasy.

And this is why Obama gets away with actions like this. The government dictating that you have to purchase healthcare insurance and controlling the health care system is a socialistic program. As opposed to letting the citizen choose if they want to purchase it and letting the free market insurance companies control the health care industry. Sure some would claim it isn't. If you take their viewpoints it makes China look like a Democratic Society.

Oh, please, are you Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh? Nothing he has done the past four years has "redistributed wealth". Get over the propaganda and outright lies.

Just love how you down play something that came straight form the horse's or jackass' mouth. Guess you missed the whole raising taxes on the wealthy thing that just happened. Sure none of that revenue is not going go into the entitlement programs which keep growing and Obama does not seem to be too concerned about that. In fact, if he was he would not have removed the requirement to prove you are looking for work on the entitlement programs.

And, then people like you will still say he didn't have enough time.

Mmm, sorry I don't think so. He will find a way to complete his vision or should I say his alcoholic, deadbeat, lying father's vision on how the world should be.

[Boomchild]

2% of my salary taken away by those wasteful fuckers.

Still pissed.

I think the 2% is not something to really be all that upset about. It should have never been a decrease in the first place. It was a huge distribution of wealth ploy to cover the higher insurance premiums. If Social Security is to survive, they can't keep raiding it.

Now, if you want to argue about social security or of 6% is the right amount, that's a different argument.

Yeah, I don't want or need Social Security. That's how I feel. Give me that FICA money to do with as I wish.

Sorry but this administration feels that it is better if you left it up to them.

[Boomchild]

A Ponzi scheme? That is just way exaggerating. I

Great, now ask the federal government to show you that the money is actually there instead of a bunch of IOUs. The only thing that keeps it from being deemed as a Ponzi scheme is that it is our government operating it and they just so happen to own the presses that prints our money.

[steveo777]

My last paycheck just had 200 dollars more deducted that I will not be able to spend on my family or myself. That's a month's worth of going to the movies. Fuck this!

[slucero]

A Ponzi scheme? That is just way exaggerating. I

Great, now ask the federal government to show you that the money is actually there instead of a bunch of IOUs. The only thing that keeps it from being deemed as a Ponzi scheme is that it is our government operating it and they just so happen to own the presses that prints our money.

There is no money in the SS Trust Fund. Not "a little", not "some", literally $0.

When your SS tax is taken out of your paycheck, most goes out immediately to pay current retirees, and the rest (say, $100) goes to the U.S. Treasury - and is spent on roads, bridges, defense, public television, whatever - spent, gone. In return for that $100, the Treasury sends the Social Security Administration an IOU for $100. These are called "special issue bonds" or SIBs.

The trust is "funded" so long as there are buyers for those SIB's.

Demographically, we are very much like Japan in that have a lower replacement worker ratio (the number of workers supporting those retirees under SSI) than ever before, with more people drawing off the system than there are supporting it. U.S. government tax receipts are down, and will continue to decline not only to due to the obvoius economic reasons, but also the not-often-thought-about demographic reasons outlined above.

Our government has also been issuing debt (deficit spending) since 1973 just to fund "other" programs, and that debt issuance went parabolically negative 2007. (see below)



Currently the government collects more than it needs to pay SSI benefits, but by 2018 the government will begin running a deficit—collecting less in SS taxes than it pays in benefits. Because the government does not save our Social Security taxes for future retirees, and since the fund is already "funded" through SIBs, there will be no "cash" in the fund to make up the difference. This is because Congress borrows this extra money FROM THE SSI FUND and uses it to make up for deficits elsewhere in the budget. Essentially the Social Security trust fund contains nothing but IOUs the government has written to itself.

The simple truth is this. The status of the SS Trust Fund depends entirely on the government's ability to sell SIB's to CONTINUE covering the recurring cost of the GROWING population of those receiving benefits. Should there be a reason for those buyers to question the credit worthiness of the SIB issuer (the U.S.) then they'll demand higher interest be paid by the government in return for purchase of the SIBs. This will cause significant issues on the governments balance sheet. Remember Debt-to-GDP is already over 100%, but it's Debt-to-Tax Revenue that we all should be concerned about.

And Debt-to-Tax Revenue is over 300% (this means the government OWES 300% more than it takes in in tax revenue)

When the buyers demand interest rates of return that cannot be met and SIBs can no longer be sold, SSI will not be funded.


This explains it further: http://www.uschamber.com/issues/retirem ... -fund-myth

[Rick]

So, thanks to whoever is to blame, for whoring out our industries and jobs to other countries.