Unemployment

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So not only do you "write" crappy stories who's ideas you stole from Judge Dredd, Red Dawn, and the Manchurian Candidate you don't even know how Social Security works. This is direct from the Social Security website. You're pathetic. Go right more shitty fiction. Oh and now you've lost the jobs argument you failed to make and you look like an ass clown because you got a basic fact wrong. What's your next line going to be? Go playwith busy body he appreciates stupid, old people.

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Of course you also read the Supreme Court case completely wrong as well. In Flemming v. Nestor the court ruled that only through due process can your Social Security benefits be taken away.

Way you're doing worse than vette and busy body. Literally, everything you've written has been completely wrong or pure bullshit. Maybe should stick to writing "stories" at least then no one will have to read them.

Stop sending me pix of your tits.

 

[dan_c00000]

Stop sending me pix of your tits.

Only if you stop sending me pictures of your tiny, old man cock.

Face it everything you wrote in this thread I proved wrong. You're my bitch.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Only if you stop sending me pictures of your tiny, old man cock.

Face it everything you wrote in this thread I proved wrong. You're my bitch.

Its a thumbnail, dispstick! Click on it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[dougsan]

Any discussion of SS must include a simple fact, most middle income and above workers will have put more money into SS than they would take out, assuming average life spans, returns on investment, etc.
2. SS dollars were supose to be invested in the USA with gauranteed minimal returns. The pols chose to not lend it to the US but to just take it.
3. Tieing Medicare/Medicaid in with SS, as they did with disbility income, was a way for the pols to brag about benefits and not have to spend any money save SS dollars whicxh were sppose to be invested
4, The pols changed the law and allowed employers to tie the retirement accounts in with SS. This was against the law intil the 70s (I think).

The problem is not with SS but with the pols (another arguement).. As a capitalist I am opposed to SS but I'll be damned if I'm not going to take it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Governments do not create jobs, except for those in the civil service. The best they can do is implement programs that will encourage hiring and expansion and refrain from implementing programs that will discourage hiring and expansion. Take a look at this: http://www.examiner.com/article/job-loss-an-early-consequence-of-election

 

[dan_c00000]

Governments do not create jobs, except for those in the civil service. The best they can do is implement programs that will encourage hiring and expansion and refrain from implementing programs that will discourage hiring and expansion. Take a look at this: http://www.examiner.com/article/job-loss-an-early-consequence-of-election

Do you even know how the government works? You have a typical right wing, crazy person view of what a job is.

Also don't forget your tea party hero Scott Walker has been doing fairly poorly creating those beloved private sector jobs.

 

[mercury14]

Governments do not create jobs, except for those in the civil service. The best they can do is implement programs that will encourage hiring and expansion and refrain from implementing programs that will discourage hiring and expansion. Take a look at this: http://www.examiner.com/article/job-loss-an-early-consequence-of-election

Lockheed-Martin has a $46 billion dollar budget, $36 billion of which is from Federal government contracts.

You're saying that if that was eliminated then there would be no job losses in the private sector? Lockheed and their subcontractors and materials firms would keep the same staffing levels despite losing 80% of their business? Or would jobs be lost?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Correct, it's called Medicare and Social Security. Ask our resident conservatives, most of them are retirees who are personally responsible for dragging down the workforce participation numbers.

But they create jobs by spending their pensions. But they don't seem to appreciate this.