Are we already at war?

Freedom1Man · Feb 4, 2013

nonameisgood said:
I have a hard time arguing the logic of taxation to people who want to keep all their money and then demand something when their plans fail. (They lose a job, get sick, and then lose their house...) Social Security was how Congress chose to fund a system to prevent starvation of those who lost their savings to the criminals on Wall Street and Main Street. It was a knee-jerk response and probably not the best course, but you can't undo the past. The alternative is for the government to allow people to starve. Which is fine on paper, but a better plan seemed the progressive thing to do at the time.

Obviously, if we cut the government back to its true purpose, many of us would be better off, but probably not like you think. If you sell goods or services, you would immediately lose 30-50% of your business. People would be too busy saving to spend, or too busy eating to buy other things. Nothing wrong with that, just suggesting we think the economics through, rather than standing blindly on principle without a plan.

BUZZZZ, wrong.

The Social Security program was brought to us by a socialist/progressive and with the help of the big banks.

Here is one good bit of history on in. http://mises.org/pdf/asc/essays/attarian.pdf

What happens when we end it? http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/15/social-security-by-choice-the

No one who understand economics buys what you're selling there.
----
As for War the government, well those pulling the strings, have been at war with "we the people" for a long time now. (thank you Mr Lincoln)
Thanks to FDR's "new deal" we can be punished and enslaved without being able to have a day inside a court in law. The state's now pass out administrative punishments without court orders all the time. In administrative courts, you are guilt until you can prove you are not.

buckfynn · Feb 4, 2013

JTHunter said:
As eye95 has already said, it wasn't a "brownshirt". It was another soldier Chris and his friend were trying to help deal with his PTSD. Itappears he had some kind of attack (panic, anxiety, etc.) and started shooting.
That being said, I disagree with eye95's assessment of our situation. For the past 10+ years, our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and (generally) our civil liberties have been under attack by the anti's, the liberal media, and the political left. The past 4 years under "Dumbo" have been ample evidence of that.
While we are not in a "shooting war", a point I hope we never reach, it may have to come to that to stop this insidious, slow-motion assault on our country.
Think about the Iranian hostage problem back in the 70's. Add in the original WTC bombing of the early 90's. Remember the attack on the U.S.S. Cole while it was docked in Yemen? Or the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut? How long have we been fighting a "holding action" against the muslim extremists without actually calling it a "war". Yet it has been a war and it continues even now.
So yes, we are at war, a war to save the U.S. as we know it. We need to acknowledge that and not turn a "blind eye" to it as we have done with the al-Queda/Taliban problem.

Good gawd is this some kind of an eye test? Not meaning to rag on you but being a bit on the older and eye tired side, it makes hard to read with the small print.

Beretta92FSLady · Feb 5, 2013

I would give anything--temporarily--to have the Government come down hard on firearms...just so I can watch tea party 2.0, and Jones types, sit down, and S T F U.

But I digress...there is no plot, there is no boogie-man hiding around the corner, preparing to grab your guns.

If you're afraid of it happening, dig yourself a bunker, stock up food, and lock yourself away, until the end of the world is over.

nobama · Feb 6, 2013

Beretta92FSLady said:
I would give anything--temporarily--to have the Government come down hard on firearms...just so I can watch tea party 2.0, and Jones types, sit down, and S T F U.

But I digress...there is no plot, there is no boogie-man hiding around the corner, preparing to grab your guns.

If you're afraid of it happening, dig yourself a bunker, stock up food, and lock yourself away, until the end of the world is over.

Your libtard,naive responses do nothing but clearly show that you are a big Gov. anti liberty, koolaid drinker.

Z1P2 · Feb 6, 2013

I am not convinced that the perp. isn't an Obama brownshirt thug or independent zealot. The whole point of having brownshirt thugs is that they aren't cops and aren't directly traceable back to Obama. Maybe it is just a coincidence that all these things have happened in short succession. But I certainly am not going to trust that people who have said they want to hunt down and murder gun owners aren't already doing it.

jmlefler · Feb 7, 2013

Freedom1Man said:
Please explain to me, how social security is constitutional in the first place. Explain to me under what constitutional authority it was exacted under.

Congress has the power to tax. Therefore there is an SSI tax.
Congress has the power to spend. Therefore there is an SSI program.
Taxing is not the same as Spending.
The two are not necessarily and are probably not related at all, unless you're trying to confuse someone...

To me, what is unconscionable is the idea that the American people bought into the idea that somehow they would 'put in' a little bit of money and are now 'entitled' to an unlimited amount of return. Not un-Constitutional, but un-Conscionable.

Carry on

eye95 · Feb 7, 2013

Under the Constitution, Congress does not have the authority to spend on whatever they wish. They can spend carrying out the 18 enumerated powers. So the question would be better phrased, "Under which one of the 18 enumerated powers does Congress have the authority to spend money on Social Security?"

Can you answer that question?

Also, ask yourself under what authority does the Congress collect the SS tax? The authority is there. Look for where it is. Then, if you're of a mind to, read the ruling that found Obamacare to be constitutional. You'll see a connection--and where the big problem is. If you're of a mind to. If not, that's OK.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

Freedom1Man · Feb 7, 2013

jmlefler said:
Congress has the power to tax. Therefore there is an SSI tax.
Congress has the power to spend. Therefore there is an SSI program.
Taxing is not the same as Spending.
The two are not necessarily and are probably not related at all, unless you're trying to confuse someone...

To me, what is unconscionable is the idea that the American people bought into the idea that somehow they would 'put in' a little bit of money and are now 'entitled' to an unlimited amount of return. Not un-Constitutional, but un-Conscionable.

Carry on

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

Sorry, you're wrong again.

Besides what category of taxation does Social Security fall under?

Since you cannot tax a right and you have the right to contract your labor (yourself) to others for any medium of exchange (money). How can your earning be taxed without your right to earn a living being taxed?

Now that you've failed the constitutional check on this. Now lets see if you can pass the legal test. What law makes the earning of the average citizen the subject of the Social Security Tax?

sudden valley gunner · Feb 8, 2013

bellyfat said:
perhaps you would like to take up the slack for retired persons like myself. I and my wife are living on ss, along with millions of other retired persons.

What are you going to do in hyper inflation? What are you going to do when others simply stop paying. Two things are coming default or hyperinflation, neither one will be good for those on SS. I feel bad that you were sold a bridge they had no right to sell, but that is the reality of it.

eye95 said:
Unfortunately, promises were made that we can't simply back down on. Folks have paid into the system with the expectation of being able to draw on it. The system is unconstitutional and needs to be wound down.

One possible solution is for the States who want to keep it going to take over the collections and payments for their citizens. For seniors in States that don't want the program to continue, SS payments are just going to have to be worked into the budget. (Stopping "crazy checks" to lazy parents would provide a nice start.) People close to retirement will have to be grandfathered somehow. Everyone else will have to work out their retirements, the way they should have all along.

I am close to SS age myself. If the feds would just repay what I have given them, including employer contributions, I wouldn't ever ask for a dime more

<o>

I understand, I too would like what I paid into it, but the problem is they spent our money already and if we ask for what we paid into it we are asking them to take from someone else who will then in turn want their money back. There is no easy solutions to this socialist problem our government has gotten us into, so a hard one will come, and I fear it will be a very hard one because they are refusing to address the problem now and make some tough choices.

eye95 · Feb 8, 2013

The SS tax was taken with the promise of payment. My solution would call for ending the SS tax (except in States that choose to keep such a program going), replacing it with general funding for those in retirement or close to it, so that taxing to fund a wind down program (or one-time buyouts, as I would take), would carry no such promise.

It's an ugly solution, but the only other solution is end the program, taxes and payments, cold turkey. While this is the more constitutional solution, it ain't gonna happen.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 9, 2013

eye95 said:
The SS tax was taken with the promise of payment. My solution would call for ending the SS tax (except in States that choose to keep such a program going), replacing it with general funding for those in retirement or close to it, so that taxing to fund a wind down program (or one-time buyouts, as I would take), would carry no such promise.

It's an ugly solution, but the only other solution is end the program, taxes and payments, cold turkey. While this is the more constitutional solution, it ain't gonna happen.

I don't think they'll take any solutions until it's too late. Your solutions is a way better one than them sticking their head in the hole and pretending there is no problem.

j4l · Feb 9, 2013

eye95 said:
And he apparently was NOT shot by any kind of brownshirt.

The willingness of some here to jump to WILD conclusions really gives the rest of us and the movement a bad name. It is hard for us to maintain credibility when wacko posts, like the one at the top of this thread, abound.

Normally, I'm among the 1st to begin shooting-down potential "conspiracy whackaloons", but on this one... I'm given pause. Granted his attacker wasnt someone Chris would likely expect to be attacked by, but... the Devil of Ramadi, snuffed, at home ? Im not buying it.
Additional info coming out, is that the guy didnt have anything like PTSD, and had never even seen actual combat ( he was a mechanic), so that "cover" to get close to Chris is already circling the drain.

I'm as less than inclined to buy into coincidences,as I am conspiracy theories.. especially this soon after Noveske's less than likely death.
Time will tell, once this shakes out, but this clown that shot Chris makes for a typical patsy...some more info may be coming out on him soon-keep an open mind, and open ears...and watch and see if he "suddenly" dies in custody, or has a convenient accident....

Freedom1Man · Feb 9, 2013

Being at war?
After the LAPD shot up a blue truck, I would have to yes.

eye95 · Feb 9, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
I don't think they'll take any solutions until it's too late. Your solutions is a way better one than them sticking their head in the hole and pretending there is no problem.

The solution may be the government going broke and defaulting on all of its commitments. That is why, even though I would accept a refund of everything I paid in as a complete settlement for all time, I have planned for my retirement without considering SS. However, I will start drawing SS as soon as I legally can, bearing in mind that, sometime soon, they will stop paying SS, and I want to get as much of my money back as I can before the house of cards blows over.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Lasjayhawk · Feb 9, 2013

Are we at war? No.

Are we at a point we should prepare for war? Yes.

Do other people feel the same way as LasJayhawk? Go check the ammo counter at WalMart, there is your answer.

If someone could give me a realistic scenario where this doesn't end badly, I'd like to hear it.

Freedom1Man · Feb 10, 2013

Lasjayhawk said:
Are we at war? No.

Are we at a point we should prepare for war? Yes.

Do other people feel the same way as LasJayhawk? Go check the ammo counter at WalMart, there is your answer.

If someone could give me a realistic scenario where this doesn't end badly, I'd like to hear it.

End badly, over what time frame?

Besides we are at war with drugs, homeless, terrorism. and more.

Gil223 · Feb 10, 2013

The Congressional Slush Fund Act of 1935, as Amended in 1939

Social Security payroll taxes are collected under the authority of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). The payroll taxes are sometimes even called FICA taxes. But what is FICA? Is it a separate law, apart from the Social Security Act? In the original 1935 law, the benefit provisions were provided under Title II of the Social Security Act (which is why we sometimes call Social Security the Title II program). Originally, the FICA/Social Security funds were a "protected fund" - a status which lasted about 4 years, until Congress decided they needed a slush fund. Also, when established in 1935, the fund was required to have a minimum of a 5 year projection of payouts - which, as of the last report I saw a couple of years ago, was then down to 6 months of projections (if that today).

Even the name of the Act is euphemistic. If you are an employee, waged or salaried, there is no "contribution" involved. The money is taken from your employer - and your paycheck - by the feds as a tax. The self-employed are required by the IRS to file quarterly taxes, and the FICA deduction is included therein (as I understand it from my self-employed days). This is the "contribution".

According to the official site for the Social Security Administration, you cannot opt out of paying into social security. The site explains that participation is mandatory, but that might not necessarily be a bad thing. "Unlike your private plan, Social Security provides disability and survivors coverage in addition to retirement benefits. And Social Security generally offers greater protection for family members than private pensions."

Apparently, the SSA doesn't believe they are on the verge of insolvency, but the mathematical facts are is severe conflict with that claim.

(We seem to have strayed far afield from OC... unless somebody keeps their Social Security check in their holster)

Pax...

Freedom1Man · Feb 10, 2013

Gil223 said:
Social Security payroll taxes are collected under the authority of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). The payroll taxes are sometimes even called FICA taxes. But what is FICA? Is it a separate law, apart from the Social Security Act? In the original 1935 law, the benefit provisions were provided under Title II of the Social Security Act (which is why we sometimes call Social Security the Title II program). Originally, the FICA/Social Security funds were a "protected fund" - a status which lasted about 4 years, until Congress decided they needed a slush fund. Also, when established in 1935, the fund was required to have a minimum of a 5 year projection of payouts - which, as of the last report I saw a couple of years ago, was then down to 6 months of projections (if that today).

Even the name of the Act is euphemistic. If you are an employee, waged or salaried, there is no "contribution" involved. The money is taken from your employer - and your paycheck - by the feds as a tax. The self-employed are required by the IRS to file quarterly taxes, and the FICA deduction is included therein (as I understand it from my self-employed days). This is the "contribution". Apparently, the SSA doesn't believe they are on the verge of insolvency, but the mathematical facts are is severe conflict with that claim.

(We seem to have strayed far afield from OC... unless somebody keeps their Social Security check in their holster) Pax...

The SSA does not show any law requiring participation either.

The only lawful request for a ITIN/TIN/SSN is a form W-9 which is not for use by citizens.

Lasjayhawk · Feb 10, 2013

Freedom1Man said:
End badly, over what time frame?

Besides we are at war with drugs, homeless, terrorism. and more.

3 months to 15 years.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 10, 2013

eye95 said:
The solution may be the government going broke and defaulting on all of its commitments. That is why, even though I would accept a refund of everything I paid in as a complete settlement for all time, I have planned for my retirement without considering SS. However, I will start drawing SS as soon as I legally can, bearing in mind that, sometime soon, they will stop paying SS, and I want to get as much of my money back as I can before the house of cards blows over.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I hear that I am looking at my future and it doesn't look good, self employed funds have been depleted, the state(s) continually want more, I don't think I will get back what I want, and I can't make enough to save.......with the coming default or collapse, guys like me are SOL.

Are we already at war?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member