Let's Have The Poor Pay For Bush's Spending

[Bodacious]

No, the government has no control over the moneys in those accounts, since it is constitutionally promised to the people.

The money in those bank accounts would be taxes. Income taxes aren't promised to be paid back, that is why they are taxes. People are promised to be paid back SS benefits, but that is all the people own is that promise, not the money given to them by the government.

 

[No Limit]

You don't understand at all.

Let me clarify.

The government doesn't own "Money." In this sense of the term, "Money" is what people receive in their paychecks, the bills in people's wallets, the coins being put into the soda machines. The govenment does not own "Money." Understand?

Now then. The government has accounts. Bank accounts. In those bank accounts is money. The government has control over those moneies that are in thsoe bank accounts. The gov owns the money in those bank accounts.

Understand?

No, if I put money in to a savings account and my bank says I can't touch that money for a few years that doesn't mean that money belongs to the bank; it still belongs to me; I just won't get it for a while.

Same with SS; I pay for it each month but won't actually get it for another 40 years or so. Reply to my other anology please as I think that makes it pretty clear and gets back to the original point.

 

[No Limit]

The money in those bank accounts would be taxes. Income taxes aren't promised to be paid back, that is why they are taxes. People are promised to be paid back SS benefits, but that is all the people own is that promise, not the money given to them by the government.

Income taxes don't have to be paid back since they belong to the government.

Social security must be paid back since it belongs to the people. Do you not see this?

This is why the government can't claim they are earning 700 billion on SS nor can they claim they are spending 400 billion on SS since that money isn't theirs. That is why it needs to be subtracted from the total.

 

[jondy]

The money in those bank accounts would be taxes. Income taxes aren't promised to be paid back, that is why they are taxes. People are promised to be paid back SS benefits, but that is all the people own is that promise, not the money given to them by the government.

Money is promise, unless it is specifically created otherwise; the Rentenmark a prime example, when the German economy was too unstable to base their currency upon trust and world percieved value alone. The Rentenmark was directly based upon land value.

Thus the promise means the people own the money. It isn't the governments money. They own money promised back. So they, to all extents and purposes, don't own it.

 

[VirusType2]

RZAL, how about you go to downtown Chicago, or downtown LA, and say that to the families that rely on this aid not because they are lazy, but because they are stuck in poverty. I have no sympathy for gangbangers or druggies, but the honest people do no deserve your disdain. So unless you yourself were once in poverty and taking handouts, and decided to "get your own place", you have no right to speak.

While I agree with him partly that some people need to stop asking for a handout.. i agree more with staticprimer...
my sister was forced to raise 3 kids on her own. She had her first child at 17. Its hard to work when you have to raise children.
Unplanned, she wasn't even legally an adult, well, my mom helped her, and the government helped her and my brothers and I helped her. My brother paid some car payments and house payments and insurance. She had the water and electricity turned off before. She had bills that were ... hell i dont know 6 months delinquent. BUT SHE GOT BY

She sold her house for 3 times what she paid for it, paid him back, and bought a new house, and is living happily ever after.

It if wasn't for government help, Her 3 children that i would give my life for, wouldn't have survived. They got food STAMPS.
No one wants to see an innocent child starve or be homeless, so someone would have taken the children from their mother,

DONT YOU THINK THATS ****ED UP? TO HAVE 3 CHILDREN SEPERATED TO be raised by 3 DIFFERENT FAMILIES AND TO BE SEPERATED FROM THEIR MOM?
I do.

You can say well, she shouldn't be having kids, but come on, its hard to stop human nature, I mean Adam from the BIBLE was tempted by an APPLE and couldnt resist.

Anyway her oldest is 14 now... She will be an adult and making her own decisions in a few years, lets hope her mom, that had the opportunity to raise her, thanks to the government aid, raise her to make better decisions so she doesnt have children before she can support them.

EDUCATION
I dont mind paying that extra nickel tax for every dollar.

 

[Bodacious]

Income taxes don't have to be paid back since they belong to the government.

Social security must be paid back since it belongs to the people. Do you not see this?

This is why the government can't claim they are earning 700 billion on SS nor can they claim they are spending 400 billion on SS since that money isn't theirs. That is why it needs to be subtracted from the total.

Ok, I looked up the 14th ammendment. Seeing how it was ratified in 1868 I don't see how it has anything to do with SS taxes.

Here is an interpritation I found.

Source

Although Sec. 4 ``was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put
beyond question the obligations of the Government issued during the
Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. . . . `[T]he
validity of the public debt'. . . [embraces] whatever concerns the
integrity of the public obligations,'' and applies to government bonds
issued after as well as before adoption of the Amendment.\74\

So it has to do with bonds, not taxes.

That ammendmend had to do with reconsruction after the Civil war. Quit trying to pull crap out of your ass to prove I am wrong.

As far as I am concerned, the gov does own the money collected from FICA taxes. That's why they are taxes.

 

[No Limit]

Ok, I looked up the 14th ammendment. Seeing how it was ratified in 1868 I don't see how it has anything to do with SS taxes.

Here is an interpritation I found.

You lack of understand in anything is getting hard to deal with. It doesn't matter when it was ratified, it is still the law of the land. This law says the government has to pay back all debt; it doesn't need to say anything about SS as SS reserves is debt.

Yeah it has to do with bonds, exactly my point. The government takes the SS reserve out in the form of bonds. Exactly why the ammendment applies here. Why won't you simply agree you are wrong; instead you will try to spin this as much as you can until I get tired of dealing with your shit.

 

[Bodacious]

Yeah it has to do with bonds, exactly my point. The government takes the SS reserve out in the form of bonds. Exactly why the ammendment applies here. Why won't you simply agree you are wrong; instead you will try to spin this as much as you can until I get tired of dealing with your shit.

The SS reserve? That is all the ammendment applies to? So how does that mean the government doesn't own the money taken from taxes?

I guess you forgot about the part that says, " in suppressing insurrection or rebellion" What does insurrection or rebellion have to do with SS taxes? Or the gov not controlling SS taxes.

Why won't you simply agree you are wrong; instead you will try to spin this as much as you can until I get tired of dealing with your shit.

 

[No Limit]

You just said I twist facts because of my constitution quote. What is wrong with you?

Does Social Security have dedicated assets invested for my retirement?

Social Security is largely a "pay-as-you-go" system with today's taxpayers paying for the benefits of today's retirees. Money not needed to pay today's benefits is invested in special-issue Treasury bonds.

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

And how do I know that you won't admit you were wrong?

 

[No Limit]

The SS reserve? That is all the ammendment applies to? So how does that mean the government doesn't own the money taken from taxes?

I guess you forgot about the part that says, " in suppressing insurrection or rebellion" What does insurrection or rebellion have to do with SS taxes? Or the gov not controlling SS taxes.

Why won't you simply agree you are wrong; instead you will try to spin this as much as you can until I get tired of dealing with your shit.

Go find someone that knows how to read a constitution and have them explain it to you as I am sick of this. That quote you posted seems to explain it exactly and proves my point. Or are you now backing away from that interpretation?

Although Sec. 4 ``was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put
beyond question the obligations of the Government issued during the
Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. . . . `[T]he
validity of the public debt'. . . [embraces] whatever concerns the
integrity of the public obligations,'' and applies to government bonds
issued after as well as before adoption of the Amendment.\74\

 

[Bodacious]

You just said I twist facts because of my constitution quote. What is wrong with you?



http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

And how do I know that you won't admit you were wrong?

I am not arguing that isn't the case. I have never argued that.

I am arguing that the money belongs to the government and they spend it. Your ammendment says nothing in regards tot aht.

 

[Bodacious]

No limit, you're on my ignore list. I can't get any work done.

 

[No Limit]

No limit, you're on my ignore list. I can't get any work done.

I hate to be such a dick but that made me laugh.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Glad to see this thread got back on track.

Bottom line is that the "Poor don't pay for Bush's spending" like the thread started claims. The people who earn a wages do... The people who make money also support the poor through social programs that have finally been cut a small amount (Still have a long way to go though)

Final bottom line in this is that any wage earner who thinks peoples wages should go to the poor still have the option to donate to the poor. You don't need the Govt. to pass on your money. Stern posted a link where all of you who are complaining that this free ride should continue can go and paypal away...

If you haven't paypal'd your donation you are just a hypocrite.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The poor dont pay for Bush's spending, borrowing does.

 

[Korgoth]

Umm seinfeld, if you borrow, that means you will have to pay that back right?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Umm seinfeld, if you borrow, that means you will have to pay that back right?

I think thats the definition....

 

[GhostFox]

I think thats the definition....

I demand to see a source for that.

Oh wait, that doesn't sound like me. Just half the other people on here.

 

[Pesmerga]

Well, alot of the things you talked about, No Limit, are really easy to think are bad things. I'm not saying that everything is good and dandy, but el presidente has muy muy advisors. Advisors are smarties. Most of any shit you see on any media is only there because it helps ratings. If they talked about growing grass, no matter how biased, it aint gonna get ratings.

 

[No Limit]

Glad to see this thread got back on track.

Bottom line is that the "Poor don't pay for Bush's spending" like the thread started claims. The people who earn a wages do... The people who make money also support the poor through social programs that have finally been cut a small amount (Still have a long way to go though)

Final bottom line in this is that any wage earner who thinks peoples wages should go to the poor still have the option to donate to the poor. You don't need the Govt. to pass on your money. Stern posted a link where all of you who are complaining that this free ride should continue can go and paypal away...

If you haven't paypal'd your donation you are just a hypocrite.

A hypocrite? How much have you donated to charities?

The simple fact is that people will not donate to the poor based on 'good-will', you have to force these people to do so. I know, I know, its not the governments job to take your money and give it to someone else. You do know that his is a load of bull crap right? Let me ask you, do you have any clue on how much money the government spends protecting big business in this country? So why does the government have the right to take money out of my pocket and not give it to the poor while it gives it to big business? Why does the government have the right to take money out of my pocket and build roads. Why does the government have the right to take money out of my pocket and protect the enviroment. Why does the government have the right to take money out of my pocket and go to war. Why does the government have the right to take my money...

I could go on forever like this. The simple point is that we get taxed and that money goes to help everyone in this country; this is the basis for any tax. You get about as much out of the federal government as anyone on welfare does wether you are driving on a road or going to a park on a Sunday.

You also haven't addressed my simple question. Why is Bush allowed to cut a few billion in helping the poor while the money he spends in Iraq adds up to a lot more. If he is making such huge cut in helping the poor why doesn't he make big cuts that protect big business?

 

[No Limit]

Well, alot of the things you talked about, No Limit, are really easy to think are bad things. I'm not saying that everything is good and dandy, but el presidente has muy muy advisors. Advisors are smarties. Most of any shit you see on any media is only there because it helps ratings. If they talked about growing grass, no matter how biased, it aint gonna get ratings.

You can not have faith in the 'smarties'. All these 'smarties' have their own agenda and it is the people's job to question those agendas as most of the time those agendas aren't there to help this country. Simply look at all the money our government is giving away to Halliburton simply because Cheney has very close ties to them.

 

[No Limit]

Just an example of how much our government spends protecting big business:

President Bush late yesterday offered the nation's beleaguered airlines $5 billion in cash aid as the first installment of an emergency bailout package intended to keep the airlines from slipping into bankruptcy.

http://www.laborresearch.org/story.php?id=17

 

[CptStern]

Well, alot of the things you talked about, No Limit, are really easy to think are bad things. I'm not saying that everything is good and dandy, but el presidente has muy muy advisors.

you just said "the president has very very advisors"

if you're trying to say "many" it's mucho

 

[CptStern]

Just an example of how much our government spends protecting big business:



http://www.laborresearch.org/story.php?id=17

I wonder if a private citizen can go to the government and ask for a bailout


"I need to feed my family can I have a bailout? can you keep me from going below the poverty line? If I'm diagnosed with cancer will you ensure that without a salary my family will be taken care of? will you give me a bailout so that I can pay for my medication without taking food out of my kid's mouth? can you keep me from losing my home?

 

[No Limit]

I wonder if a private citizen can go to the government and ask for a bailout


"I need to feed my family can I have a bailout? can you keep me from going below the poverty line? If I'm diagnosed with cancer will you ensure that without a salary my family will be taken care of? will you give me a bailout so that I can pay for my medication without taking food out of my kid's mouth? can you keep me from losing my home?

According to conservatives these people can just pull the money they need out of their ass. If they can't they are lazy slobs that don't deserve any help. And I am dead serious, they mean exactly this and they don't even try to hide it. You'd think they would atleast word it differently to make themselves look better.

So much for 'compassionate conservatism' that Bush was talking about.

 

[CptStern]

"the poor are poor because they want to be poor"

 

[RZAL]

I wonder if a private citizen can go to the government and ask for a bailout


"I need to feed my family can I have a bailout? can you keep me from going below the poverty line? If I'm diagnosed with cancer will you ensure that without a salary my family will be taken care of? will you give me a bailout so that I can pay for my medication without taking food out of my kid's mouth? can you keep me from losing my home?

So you don't see this as a "bailout" for the thousands of private working families in the air transportation industry? What about the welfare program, is it not a "bailout" for private citizens?

"Our nation must act now to limit the effects of terrorism," said Teamsters General President James. P. Hoffa. "Congress and the President must preserve not only the financial solvency of air carriers, but the jobs of thousands of working families in the air transportation industry."

 

[CptStern]

I wasnt specifically talking about the airline industries ..I'm talking about corporations in general

 

[No Limit]

So you don't see this as a "bailout" for the thousands of private working families in the air transportation industry? What about the welfare program, is it not a "bailout" for private citizens?

"Our nation must act now to limit the effects of terrorism," said Teamsters General President James. P. Hoffa. "Congress and the President must preserve not only the financial solvency of air carriers, but the jobs of thousands of working families in the air transportation industry."

An airline wouldn't have any trouble getting itself back on its feet without that money; they originally asked for 24 billion and only got 5, that 5 billion they could have easliy loaned. This was nothing more than handing them 5 billion under the disguise of saving the airline industry.

Now, I am perfectly fine with our government giving this money as it does save a number of jobs; however, do you not see how idiotic it is to help corportations and then turn around and say any individual person that needs aid is a lazy slob that doesn't deserve it? This is exactly what conservatives are doing.

 

[firemachine69]

I won't get in to how wrong you are about those people not needing it as that is pointless. Do you understand that Bush cut taxes FOR THE RICH. Now, to pay for those tax cuts he cutting programs poor families rely on. This is nothing more than taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

W00t, gets your green tights guys, it's Robin Hood time! :E

 

[RZAL]

I wasnt specifically talking about the airline industries ..I'm talking about corporations in general

It’s the same principle, businesses employ people and generate revenue. A part of that revenue funds the welfare programs.

do you not see how idiotic it is to help corportations and then turn around and say any individual person that needs aid is a lazy slob that doesn't deserve it? This is exactly what conservatives are doing.

I’m not going there.

 

[No Limit]

I’m not going there.

Why not?

Also, the part you quoted wasn't the only thing in the post .

 

[RZAL]

Why not?

Also, the part you quoted wasn't the only thing in the post .

Because....LOL

 

[bvasgm]

You know what, f l_l ck the government. State of nature ownz!!! John Locke Pwns u all w00t!!!1....ok, now back to people who want to be serious.. :rolling:

 

[RZAL]

You know what, f l_l ck the government. State of nature ownz!!! John Locke Pwns u all w00t!!!1....ok, now back to people who want to be serious.. :rolling:

Is that a facetious remark or are you just somewhere in the middle?