Friday, 2 October 2015

SOCIAL SECURITY



Anonymous writes:

The one percent in America think that ordinary people have too much money because of their Social Security.

The one percent got bailed out with £ trillions which went straight into their off shore tax havens, when it could have been used to help ordinary Americans by kick starting the economy and write off debts.

American workers pay into Social Security a little bit out of their wages each month, or week.

The one percent say it is broke, but it is in the black and worth over 4 $trillion.

The Social Security fund cannot borrow money by law, it purely funded by the American people out of their wages.

The one percent have stolen everything else and they now want that 4 trillion too, so they spread lies about it being bankrupt and the dumb working class Conservatives go along with it.

...

10 comments:

  1. Imagine how would look world if the men were working and women sit in home and take care of own children. This is happen in muslim/african countries, this is why they have one of best birth rating everywhere, am right? an muslim country are a socialic too, mmh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Most able bodied people want to earn a living, but many in the West cannot because, in this era of offshoring of jobs to Asian sweatshops, their labor is worth less than the minimum wage. There are two possible solutions:

    One is to eliminate the minimum wage while instituting a negative income tax that insures that the lowest paid worker receives a living wage, an option I discussed here.

    The other, if the minimum wage is retained, is for governments to sell job subsidies to employers by competitive auction, as I outlined here.

    That no Western state seriously considers either option suggests that enlightened liberal Western governments simply wish the underclass to be underground, dying prematurely due to drug addition, malnutrition or criminal violence, with all posterity slaughtered at birth of before, the parts sold to the highest bidder to keep rich old fuckers like Soros alive for ever.

    As the boys of the Eton debating society voted long ago: The Faces of the Poor Should be Ground, a motion passed with the amendment "That the Faces of the Poor Should be Underground."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for that Aang.

    Everyone calls it an "entitlement", but it's an insurance fund where people have put in all their lives.

    Now we have the largest demographic bulge ever (i.e. the biggest pot ever) reaching retirement, so now the Baby Boomers are going to see their hard earned insurance pot stolen.

    Boo! Baby Boomers bad!!!

    El Sid

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.smh.com.au/world/white-man-speaking-fluent-british-english-led-killing-of-60-kenyans-watching-world-cup-20140620-zsh37

    Interesting to see that kind of 'detail' in the mainstream news

    MS

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Social Security Trust Fund was stolen by being illegally transferred into the General Fund by former Presidents to lower the debt level. It was claimed to be just borrowed, but was never returned. The "Trust" was not to ever be used for any other purpose, and if it had been left secure, there would always have been enough for the LEGAL recipients of Social Security for generations.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was senior manager, and there is pressure through government to the CBI not to employ British workers, we had a trial case where a british lad kept applying for jobs using the polish version of his name and in every case he got called in for an interview, when they found he was British the interview was immediately terminated. The government for whatever reason wants the British unemployed, I heard a bank rep say once that the government wanted British people to use up their savings, they wanted that money in circulation, this would probably be before the economic crash

    ReplyDelete
  7. Extract: http://www.hermes-press.com/sss1.htm

    Capitalist thugs have perpetrated a treacherous sneak attack on Social Security--a cultural Pearl Harbor!

    Pretending to be cutting taxes for the middle class, the Big Money Fat Cats and their Congressional lackeys in 2010 cut payroll contributions to Social Security from 6.2% to 4.2%, representing a loss to the Social Security Fund of $140 billion the first year! This 2010 Obama/Republican Party payroll tax cut actually represented a 30 percent reduction of money going into Social Security.

    In 2011, Obama proposed--and pushed through Congress--further cuts in payroll contributions to Social Security from 4.2% to 3.1% for both employers and employees. This represents a loss of 50 percent in revenue, a loss of $480 billion in Social Security contributions in 2012 alone. Cutting any program by 50% of its revenue is a sure way to destroy it in the long run!

    Your paying payroll deductions of 6.2 percent (as in the original plan) is a way to build for your retirement--it's not a tax, as the billionaires claim. Your employer also pays 6.2 percent of your wages into the Social Security Fund. Reducing your payroll deductions by a third or a half is DETRIMENTAL to you--endangering your retirement. Your boss is HAPPY to reduce the amount he has to pay relative to your retirement. The Democrats and Republicans who voted for the tax cut bill in 2011 believed workers are so stupid that they would think this reduction of 30 percent--which they're falsely calling a tax reduction--is a benefit to workers. In 2011, Obama and his Republican co-conspirators bet that the American public is so dumb that we'll fall for an even greater reduction in worker retirement funds.

    In 2013, the cabal and its Obama stooge administration, began a new frontal attack on Social Security: Chained Consumer Price Index (CPI). This is particularly vicious, because by this means the Wall Street banksters and hedge-fund hyenas loot more of a senior's Social Security allotment the older that person is.

    Forty-two percent of American senior citizens are kept from living in poverty by their Social Security payments. Nearly one in five Americans receives Social Security benefits and ninety-five percent of Americans have the Social Security benefit protection program. The poverty rate of the elderly was 35% as late as 1959. Now it's about 10%, because of the reliable Social Security program they have paid into.

    The capitalist cabal's tactic in attacking Social Security was to place a pretend-progressive in the presidency, then make it appear that he was forced to compromise with the Republican Party reactionaries in securing a necessary tax cut for rich and poor. Actually, Obama, the cabal puppet, was tasked to attack Social Security and extend the Bush II tax cuts for the super-wealthy the moment he was selected by cabal mandarins such as Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    Now that this attack on Social Security has been approved by Congressional traitors (81 in the Senate and 277 in the House), the Republican Party-dominated Congress that came into power in 2011 is making sure that the payroll deductions from Social Security remain a permanent feature. Once this sabotage tactic against Social Security begins to affect the program's ability to pay out benefits, the capitalist cabal will use this excuse to renew its old tactic of saying that Social Security must be entirely scrapped.



    ReplyDelete
  8. Good thread here.

    Seeing as there's nowhere else to make money from these days, let's go for public-funded programmes.

    Pensions? Now there's a nice big pot. Though I don't know the sum.

    I've heard that in the UK the NHS annual budget is around 1 Trillion pounds. Oh, I've got a good idea: let's privatise that.

    And partially it already is.

    Fifty years ago 3-5% of the NHS budget went to administrative costs. Now it's about 16%, in the US much higher. The rise in the UK is due to employing "managers" from private industry: i.e. I used to run a profitable sausage factory, so I'm worth 300 thou a year. No need to employ bleeding-heart, nancy medical professionals to run your hospital, who are more worried about whether your granny dying from cancer gets her morphine shot when she should. Or if she's had her nappy changed.

    El Sid

    ReplyDelete
  9. Regarding Jaywick, the interviewer herself tells you why guvmint won't spend money there: it's in a flood zone or more accurately, it's in danger of being washed away if there's a recurrence of:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953

    Pity, because there are nice sands and good sunshine levels there and up the coast at Clacton where that fact contributed to the estabishment of a recuperation hospital. Also pleasant coastal views - at least, till guvmint planted a windfarm on the horizon - and Jaywick remains I think near if not actually 100% White indigenous British. Not much money, but probably some community if you want it.

    Guvmint has money (endless amounts) but it's not for YOU. The policy of huge public indebtedness and zero interest rates coupled with money expansion via QE has not financed productive industrial growth but favoured the banks and grown bubbles with resultant engorged bonuses for senior management; at the same time, the absence of investor income has rendered final salary pension schemes unviable and they are being closed. Public debt is now so high relative to GDP (even when sleezily defined as including drugs and er, personal services, however measured) that anything more than near zero rates will risk breaking the camel's back. If half of guvmint revenue is spent on debt service and debt is equal to GDP, these facts bode ill for the currency keeping anything near its value. Even if the Bank of England does not up rates, the market will coerce it, and swiftly, if fear takes hold. Just recall the banks nearly failed late 2008 - but only some 22 MPs attended the HoC debate on Money Creation and Society in November 2014, so much does the general public care.

    The only relatively good factor in the UK's favour is its public debt is relatively long-dated, so some room to wriggle out and kick the can down the road a while longer(?)

    Coincident with this economic destruction is geopolitical 'creative destruction' being perpetrated by those who do not have our interests in mind. The bombing of Syria and the preceding destruction of Libya are for no purpose which serves British national interests yet at taxpayer expense, and the resultant contribution to the deluge of refugees wanting to be supported by the British State is another crisis factor (a 90% majority of 'migrants' are a mix of economic immigrants subsidised by Soros et al., and, frankly, invaders).

    This all happens to some degree because the British are soft. Their island existence has freed them from having to push against the sorts of pressures that even in modern times continental Europeans have had to contend with in defending their territory. They are also highly suggestible as a people, and a willing prey to sermonising libtards, moral imperialists and subversives of all kinds.

    There's more coming:

    https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

    13.a a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries...


    You receive what you permit to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Absolutely true at 5.07. I worked for Priory group and hospital director came from Sainsburys. The money as he saw it was in adolescent psychiatry. There be gold in them thar kids.

    ReplyDelete