Something to think about!

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Hmmm... I'm pretty liberal. I drive a Mazda CX5 when I drive a car, but usually ride one of my bicycles. I live in the suburbs, but I do have to admit that a lot of my rides are "urban". I don't own a gun, I like classical music, but I must say that I really DO enjoy my Social Security checks that your contributions make popular. But did you notice, I didn't say anything demeaning about rednecks. What part of driving a pickup, liking country music, owning a gun or two and hates Socialism (as REpublicans define it) is derogatory? Not hoopty...nothing about the illegality of their guns. Nothing about welfare...although retired rednecks all seem to enjoy their Socialist Security as much as I do.

Social security is not welfare. It is funded by employee and employer contributions.

Don't credit me for funding your Social Security checks after you and your employers have paid into it for decades. Social Security would be in a fine state had our government not robbed us blind and given us a bunch of worthless IOU's.

Cut the crap. We both know you are using Redneck as a derogatory term.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Hmmm... I'm pretty liberal.

I prefer to think of you as an unwitting communist who fell for a bad sales pitch.

 

[KCFlyer]

I prefer to think of you as an unwitting communist who fell for a bad sales pitch.

I lean liberal but I read a lot. Of things I agree with, and things I don't. Then I decide. I think the sales pitch from the right reeks of snake oil.

 

[KCFlyer]

Social security is not welfare. It is funded by employee and employer contributions.

Don't credit me for funding your Social Security checks after you and your employers have paid into it for decades. Social Security would be in a fine state had our government not robbed us blind and given us a bunch of worthless IOU's.

Cut the crap. We both know you are using Redneck as a derogatory term.

Oh...Social Security is most certainly socialist and welfare. While me and my employer did contribute a lot - I'm still getting a lot of the money that YOU guys put it. Hell...95% of the time the right calls SS a ponzi scheme.

Social Security was first robbed when the Reagan tax cuts weren't meeting our needs, so money was "diverted" from Social Security. That's about the time that I started paying for my dads Social Security. And that's most of my work life. So it's your money i'm living on. Thanks.

 

[delldude]

SHe's more concerned about Missouri rednecks spending a weekend at Lake of the Ozarks than she is from illegals infecting her. In Kansas City one is far more likely to get Covid from a Murrican who went to the lake than they are from a Mexican in Brownsville.

You wanna make abet on that?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Oh...Social Security is most certainly socialist and welfare. While me and my employer did contribute a lot - I'm still getting a lot of the money that YOU guys put it. Hell...95% of the time the right calls SS a ponzi scheme.

Social Security was first robbed when the Reagan tax cuts weren't meeting our needs, so money was "diverted" from Social Security. That's about the time that I started paying for my dads Social Security. And that's most of my work life. So it's your money i'm living on. Thanks.

Educate yourself. The government was borrowing from Social Security LONG before Reagan. Either you are totally ignorant to that fact or you choose to ignore it to push your narrative.

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

THE FINANCING PROCEDURES

In the Social Security Act of 1935 the income from the payroll tax was to be credited to a Social Security "account." Benefits were to be paid against this account, but there was no formal trust fund as such. Taxes began to be collected in January 1937, and monthly benefits were to be paid starting in January 1942 (later pushed forward to January 1940). So the payroll taxes were just credits in the Social Security account on the Treasury's ledger under the initial law.

The investment rules governing payroll tax income were also established in the 1935, and are essentially the same ones in use today. Specifically, the 1935 Act stated: "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States." (See Title II, Section 201of the 1935 law)

In the 1939 Amendments, a formal trust fund was established and a requirement was put in place for annual reports on the actuarial status of the fund. Specifically, the law provided: "There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 'Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund'. . . . The Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940, which securities and amount the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the Trust Fund, and, in addition, such amounts as may be appropriated to the Trust Fund as herein under provided." (Title II, Section 201a)

In other words, a formal trust fund was established for the Social Security program and the credits already on the Treasury's books for the Social Security program were to be transferred to this Fund, along with all future revenues raised for the program.

The investment procedures adopted in 1939 were modified only slightly from those in the original Act of 1935. Basically, changes were made in the interest rate rules governing the investments, and the Managing Trustee was designated as the investing official (who happens to be the Secretary of the Treasury in any case), but in most other respects the language was similar to that in the original law. (See the text of the 1939 Amendments for more details.)

Both the 1935 and the 1939 laws specified three types of purchases that might be made: 1) securities on original issue at par; 2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price; and 3) via the issuance of "special obligation bonds" that could be issued only to the Social Security Trust Fund. These special obligation bonds were not to be marketable, although the other two forms of securities could be. The idea of special obligation bonds was not new nor unique to the Social Security program. Similar bonds were used during World War I and World War II, and it was in fact the Second Liberty Bond Act that was the law amended in 1939 to allow the Social Security program to make use of this type of government bond.

Consequently, over time the Social Security Trust Funds have included a mix of marketable and non-marketable Treasury securities. Over the years, the proportion has shifted heavily in favor of special obligation bonds as the main asset held by the Social Security Trust Funds. Prior to 1960, the Treasury's policy was to invest primarily in marketable securities, although this policy was not always followed. Since 1960, the policy has been to invest principally in special obligation bonds, unless the Managing Trustee of the funds (i.e., the Secretary of the Treasury) determines that investment in marketable securities would be "in the public interest." In fact, since 1980 no marketable securities have been added to the Trust Funds. (For a more detailed explanation see the Office of the Actuary's Actuarial Note #142.)

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

These financing procedures have not changed in any fundamental way since payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

I lean liberal but I read a lot. Of things I agree with, and things I don't. Then I decide. I think the sales pitch from the right reeks of snake oil.

So you claim to be an impartial and independent thinker but then state the sales pitch from the right reeks of snake oil.

How very impartial of you.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Oh...Social Security is most certainly socialist and welfare.

Actually it isn't. Stop lying and trying to make Social Security what you want it to be to push your narrative instead of what it is. It is funded through you and your employer in a trust fund.

The government then converts those assets to interest bearing investments, usually government bonds.

The problem is instead of paying it back they distribute ever increasing and ever worthless IOU's.

Hell...95% of the time the right calls SS a ponzi scheme.

That is because that is exactly what worthless IOU's have turned it into.

Social Security was first robbed when the Reagan tax cuts weren't meeting our needs, so money was "diverted" from Social Security. That's about the time that I started paying for my dads Social Security. And that's most of my work life. So it's your money i'm living on. Thanks.

Yeah, that is totally wrong. The government has ALWAYS borrowed against Social Security (see post #127). That did NOT start with Reagan, it has ALWAYS been. The Dumbocrats have been selling that lie for years in an attempt to smear the Republican Party. It is an easy sell to the intellectually lazy.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Some one is keeping LaLa up at night.

 

[KCFlyer]

You wanna make abet on that?

I'd be willing to bet that far more cases in Kansas City come from Murricans within the borders of Kansas and Missouri than from illegals that came across the border.

 

[Seatacus]

Hmmm... I'm pretty liberal. I drive a Mazda CX5 when I drive a car, but usually ride one of my bicycles. I live in the suburbs, but I do have to admit that a lot of my rides are "urban". I don't own a gun, I like classical music, but I must say that I really DO enjoy my Social Security checks that your contributions make popular. But did you notice, I didn't say anything demeaning about rednecks. What part of driving a pickup, liking country music, owning a gun or two and hates Socialism (as REpublicans define it) is derogatory? Not hoopty...nothing about the illegality of their guns. Nothing about welfare...although retired rednecks all seem to enjoy their Socialist Security as much as I do.

Hey KC, I remember you at one time drove a Prius. Right? You were touting its good gas mileage. What changed your mind?

 

[lineguy43]

How about we cut the red tape and start using treatments we KNOW are effective.

When I was in the COVID ward they treated me with Remdesivir and convalescent plasma. I went from not being able to stand up to walking around in 6 hours.

So tell me, why did the hospital in Tulsa have to get permission from some bureaucrat in Oklahoma city to provide me treatment? This is where we are now. Instead of MY doctors making the decision it is some government screw in OKC. This is what you fools get when you let government control healthcare.

Why did they wait 2 days before administering the treatment?

I still have issues breathing even now. Especially in hot humid weather. I have to wonder if that could have been prevented had they started treatment as soon as my COVID test came back positive.

Also of note they said they had another experimental treatment but the results were mixed and I would not qualify for it anyway. If the results were "mixed" why are they not sticking with what they KNOW is effective?

This 1000% I have been saying this all along. When Trump and Ben Carson caught COVID they immediately were put on Remdesivir Ben Carson said he quickly saw it saved the day for him. Why do our doctors have to request it it should be mass produced and instantly given to anyone with diagnosis of COVID. But they want to push these vaccines. Now for the record I am vaccinated I have many co morbidities so I felt the vaccine was worth the risk. Well now thanks to the Delta variant you can forget about herd immunity I already know a vaccinated person who has died from COVID and another 2 more who were fully vaccinated who have COVID but not severe. Israel and Iceland are on the CDC list of no travel due to raging infection despite both countries population being mostly fully vaccinated. Nope I have seen enough that idiot Fauci talking on NBC nightly news last night saying if the US isn't fully vaccinated we will see variants that totally evade the vaccine protection. Guess what Einstein you would have to vaccinate the entire world to achieve that not just the US. Mutations will continue around the world and come to our shores and with the amount of people we let flood into our unprotected southern border it wouldn't be long until we are facing an even worse variant. I was hopeful at first on these vaccines but have now changed my mind. I am convinced this is the new chemotherapy something that may work for a few people but by and large is a money maker for big pharma and in the case of chemo it is actually poison. We will never vaccinate our way out of this. it is our new way of life. Thanks China

 

[delldude]

I'd be willing to bet that far more cases in Kansas City come from Murricans within the borders of Kansas and Missouri than from illegals that came across the border.

And where are these undocumented democrats being located?

 

[KCFlyer]

And where are these undocumented democrats being located?

I have no idea. But odds are, they are flocking across the border to come to Kansas City.

 

[delldude]

I have no idea. But odds are, they are flocking across the border to come to Kansas City.

Only need a handful to start it rolling.