OUR U.S.A. When Did Socialism Begin? (solution, retirement, government)

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What is AGAINST traditional authority or opinion?

From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

Most Americans would be surprised to learn that private property rights were abolished by voluntary enrollment into national socialism (aka Socialist InSecurity).

Once again you debunk your own premise in the writing.

If the government takes your property for public use - and does not pay just compensation - then you have absolute proof that you do not own private property anymore.

The just compensations are social security benefits.

internet lawyers...yikes!

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

The purpose of your social security withholding is not to pay your way but to pay the way of those who are now of retirement age. We the people, have decided that we would prefer to provide for the aged (although I would prefer a needs test) rather than see them living in poverty.

Over the years it's been expanded to include more than those that contributed to the system and more than just retirement age people.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Over the years it's been expanded to include more than those that contributed to the system and more than just retirement age people.

Tis true, and thank you for pointing that out since it reenforces my point.

[dorock99]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

During the administration of Franklin Roosevelt.It was FDR that started the nation down this Fabian highway of so called democratic socialism.There is very little that is democratic about socialism,something that the political right has known for decades,but that the left still cannot grasp.

Oh please just shut up about this left and right stuff. Facts

1. No matter who has been in office whether conservative or liberal the government has expanded since FDR

2. No matter who has been in office whether conservative or liberal the government has raised the tax on Social Security and Medicare (went up 30% during the Reagan years)

3. Fact, conservatives and liberals both support corporate welfare in some form or fashion. Think about it, has either party gotten rid of crop subsidies (they were put in by conservatives to secure farming votes), has either lowered or gotten rid of tariffs or reduced Quotas? NO, the answer is either side has not done anything for the average American. They both continue to raise the price on us all!!! WAKE THE FREAK UP DUDE!

4. Conservatives and Liberals have both been guilty of passing tax cuts and paying for additional programs by printing money, which gives us a hidden inflation tax and makes our wealth disappear year after year!!!


Dude, if you're that blind to say something along those lines then we as nation will never be able to rise up against the real enemies of freedom!!!

Our country is the brightest of all the countries in the world and believe me that is not saying much. It is like saying you're the smartest student in a special education class (no offense).

95% of us will never be rich or wealthy, but yet 95% of the population consistently argues against their own self interest time after time after time. The educated elites on both sides have benefited from the shear ignorance of the masses. This has been done time and time again.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

The propaganda ministry has been successful in creating divisions that are meaningless or inaccurate. The biggest BIG LIE is the so-called battle between left and right wing or liberal and conservative.

Let's consider the wing with which people are associated with, when speaking of political partisanship.

LEFT WING - the section of a political party, government or group that holds the most left or radical views.
- - - Webster's Dictionary

RIGHT WING - the section of a political party, government or group that holding the views of the Right.
- - - Webster's Dictionary

THE RIGHT - that section of a political party ... which associates itself with traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative bodies is seated traditionally to the right of the presiding officer.
- - - Webster's Dictionary

THE LEFT - that section of a political party ... which differs most from traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative bodies is seated traditionally to the left of the presiding officer.
- - - Webster's Dictionary

Is that clear?
Left = opposition to traditional authority or opinion
Right = support of traditional authority or opinion

So what clue leads us to know what "traditional authority or opinion" is?

Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What is AGAINST traditional authority or opinion?

From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

Most Americans would be surprised to learn that private property rights were abolished by voluntary enrollment into national socialism (aka Socialist InSecurity). Since 1935, the U.S. government has been LEFTIST, whether Demopublican or Republicrat.

PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

If the government takes your property for public use - and does not pay just compensation - then you have absolute proof that you do not own private property anymore.

In case you were curious, there is NO LAW that requires all Americans to participate in Socialist InSecurity, nor is there any law that punishes an American who does not participate. It is 100% voluntary - voluntary servitude - legal slavery to the collective STATE.

(BTW - no communist nation achieved true communism. All admit that they have only reached SOCIALISM...)

COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.

SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary

Socialism and its cousin, communism, are diametrically opposed to absolute ownership by individuals. They will only tolerate qualified ownership (aka "estate"), shared with the State, and you know who has the superior claim...

Stop paying your socialist taxes, and see WHO REALLY OWNS YOU AND YOURS.

So what "WING" is really flying over the United States of America?

LEFT WING

There are NO right wing partisans out there, tramping about, advocating natural and personal liberty, and sovereignty of the American people. The extremists of both sides are left wing - and are quite effective in distracting debate of the REAL issue.

The U.S. Constitution is effectively bypassed by the "consent" (via compact) that each American has under FICA. You can't be an advocate for "constitutional" government and participate in socialist insecurity - the bane of private property ownership.

(No alleged "right wing" / conservative politician dare utter that frightening thought : Repeal Social Security and all the income transfer entitlement programs.)

I repeat: American politics have been entirely LEFT WING since 1935.

Welcome to the 'United Socialist States of America' - a wholly owned subsidiary of the World Bank and IMF.

=============================

The Supreme Court under Bush ruled that a municipality may declare eminent domain just because they want to put something else on your property.

[Hombre57]

Originally Posted by dorock99

Hombre, you're honestly not even worth responding to, but everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how seriously wrong it may be.

1. Your 401k is an employer sponsored retirement plan where you pay into what you get out at retirement plus what ever you investments, interest, and dividends amounted to

A 401k plan is a voluntary plan for starts there is no compulsory action by government to make you pay for your own retirement.

Hypothetical Scenario

401k - You put in 4,000 (your contribution plus a company match) a year and your company might even give you a free match on the money. You put this this same amount in for the 40 years you work at this particular company. Let say after inflation you get a 7% return each year on the 401k account

Basic math on an Annuity (401k plan)

(4000/0.07)*((1+0.07)^40-1) =800,000 (by the time you retire)

You do not get to take out anymore than you put in and the amount of interest you earned on what you put in. No one else is helping to fund your 401k (with the exception of a small company match, which most people sadly do not take advantage of). There is no compulsory effort on the part of your company for you to join the 401k plan it is strictly voluntary

Now, Social Security and Medicare, are "technically" voluntary programs, but the government has racketeered individuals and businesses into paying for other individuals retirement. There is a significant difference. You pay into Social Security not out of choice, but coercion by the government. You do not get what you put in you usually get more on the backs of new entrants into the program. You 401k is an investment vehicle, but Social Security is nothing more than a giant Ponzi Scheme!!

A Social Security example would work like this

Let's say you make 50,000 dollars on average over the course of your 40 working years. You are taxed for Social Security at a rate of 6.2% on those earning each year for 40 years until you retire at 65. A government sponsored annuity, which is what social security is, only returns a paltry 1% adjusted for inflation, if that, because they are investing in government bonds, which if the spread between inflation and government bonds is extremely small the less you make.

Basic Math on a SS annuity

50*6.2 = 3100 a year for 40 years =

Basic

(3100/0.01)*((1+0.01)^40-1) =151,000 (by the time you retire, that you have actually paid into the program plus the paltry 1% interest your received.

NOW HERE IS THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 401k Voluntary Annuity Plan, in which you retire on exactly what you put in plus interest and a Government Sponsored Annuity Plan like Social Security.

Let's say you live until 80 and your Social Security Check pays out 1700 a month or 20,400 a year

15 years after you start receiving your Social Security Check

Basic Math

20,400*15 = 306,000 dollars would have been paid out to via Social Security

How could that be??? Your investment and what you put in clearly did not entitle you to an extra (306,000 - 151,000 =) 155,000 dollars did it?

The answer is an equivocal NO, if you believe you are entitled to other peoples money that is stealing!!!! Plain and simple. The extra 155,000 that you did not earn or contribute to the program is available to you on the backs of a hardworking tax payer, who is much younger than you and will most likely not see a dime, when he/she retirees at 70 (which is where it will be moved by the time i retiree).

Now, to answer you last question if your 401k plan tanked. Well, smart guy who the hell only relies on a 401k plan and or Social Security.

You should have also invest in your own retirement via an IRA or Roth IRA plan. Hello, why should you company and your government (fellow tax payers) be so responsible for your retirement?????

Anyway if you had invested in a Roth IRA over the last 40 years and received the same return you did on your company sponsored 401k plan you'd still have

800,000 dollars all your self free of tax!!!


I should not have to pay for your retirement, due to you ignorance, with all of the available information on the web, that you could easily Google etc.

The younger generation opt out Revolution is coming, so i would suggest you start to invest and look out for your own retirement. Armed with the information that we can opt out of Medicare and Social Security, most people will leave the program behind in a heart beat, because we are sick of covering individuals like you!!


Any question Hombre?

You're just about as insulting and demeaning as the poster I replied to. Is that how you f*ckers here at city data act? You cannot carry on a meaningful discussion and respect another person's opinion without that element?

[ozzie679]

Originally Posted by Hombre57

You're just about as insulting and demeaning as the poster I replied to. Is that how you f*ckers here at city data act? You cannot carry on a meaningful discussion and respect another person's opinion without that element?

In general, yes. It's very hard to have a civil conversation on C-D. Some of the people on here are just looking got that "gotcha moment". They look for any shred of evidence that will validate their position.

Respect opinions? Ya right ....They don't even respect the facts!

dorock99, that was not directed at you. It's just a general observation.

[dorock99]

Originally Posted by Hombre57

You're just about as insulting and demeaning as the poster I replied to. Is that how you f*ckers here at city data act? You cannot carry on a meaningful discussion and respect another person's opinion without that element?

Look Hombre57, you have a point, my tone with you was a bit demeaning and insulting and i do apologize, you are very correct, that is not a mature way to discuss a difference of opinion. However, the fact, remains, that i do disagree with how you see Social Security and Medicare, and besides my demeaning tone, i think you can see the facts are more in my favor than in yours. Hombre57, sorry, I got emotional about the topic and insulted you to start. Hopefully you can read my facts and figures and we can debate your positon without the petty insults.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Boompa

The Supreme Court under Bush ruled that a municipality may declare eminent domain just because they want to put something else on your property.

Very true... but since 1935, if you check the court record, only ESTATE has been taken. Estate (as in real estate) is held with qualified ownership, not absolute ownership.

Clever, aren't they?

[punkrocker27ka]

What is it with these stupid threads.