- Be prepared for the fraud of the century! He's trying
to DENY there ever WAS a Social Securitytrust fund!!! Be prepared people.
We may be in for the fight of our lives here...
-
-
- Ways and Means Kills Inquiry Into Question On Trust Fund
- By Congressman Dennis Kucinich
- A Buzzflash Guest Contribution
-
- Last night, in a rare Monday night session, the Ways
and Means Committee of the United States House of Representative voted
22-1 against a resolution which would require the President to produce
documentation supporting his oft-repeated claim that there is no Social
Security Trust.
-
- The action stopped a Resolution of Inquiry from proceeding
to the full House for a vote. I introduced the resolution last month after
President Bush had claimed in a meeting in New Hampshire that "there
is no Social Security trust." He has since repeated the assertion.
The implications of the President's assertions about the Social Security
trust fund are quite serious for the 48 million Americans who currently
rely on Social Security, and for those who will become recipients in the
future.
-
- According to the Social Security Administration's own
trustees, Social Security has $1.68 trillion in the Trust Fund. According
to the Social Security Administration the surplus will grow to over $6
trillion.
-
- Most interesting, however, the President's assertion
that there is no Trust Fund comes at a time when the Administration has
borrowed over $637.4 billion from the fund obtained in highly regressive
taxes on American workers. That borrowed money is, in effect, being used
to help fund an illegal war and to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest
Americans.
-
- If the President's assertions remain unchallenged, the
Administration can continue to drain the Trust Fund of its assets and make
true its now false claim that Social Security has no Trust Fund and is
going bankrupt. They only need the complicity of the Congress.
-
- Now the Congressional committee which has direct jurisdiction
over Social Security is refusing to hold the President accountable for
his statements. In other words, the Committee itself doesn't want the President
to produce any documents supporting his claim that there is no Social Security
Trust.
-
- If Congress had formally asked the President to produce
documents backing up his contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction,
he would have been unable to do so and would have lacked a sufficient cause
to go to war.
-
- If Congress had formally asked the President to produce
documents that the United States could afford massive tax cuts to the wealthy
without going into huge deficits, he would have been unable to do so and
we would not be cutting funds for education, housing, job-creation and
other social services (nor borrowing from Social Security) to mask the
increasing inability of the government to balance its budget.
-
- The President has a Constitutional obligation to uphold
the public debt of the United States. Social Security's financial obligations
are, according to the Social Security Trustees, backed by the "full
faith and credit of the United States". If, indeed, there is no Social
Security trust - as the President asserts with the political protection
of his Congressional majority - then it is clear that the President is
heading towards a direct challenge to his own constitutional authority
and legal responsibilities to affirm the financial obligations of Social
Security.
-
- Congressman Dennis Kucinich
- www.kucinich.us
-
-
- Comment
- From Patricia Doyle, PhD
- 4-28-5
-
- Hello, Jeff - Yes, Bush is right, there is NO Social
Security Trust Fund. NOW.
-
- Because He and his ilk ripped it off. All that remains
is a big IOU. Now, he probably even took back the IOU and that's why he
is saying Sorry folks, there is NO Trust Fund.
-
- I fail to understand why Bush has not been impeached
and held on charges of grand larceny and a dozen other crimes.
-
- Don't the American people understand he has fleeced them?
Most of the Trust Fund has gone to his Iraq War and its 'rebuilding'...and
more bombing and more 'rebuiding.' Gone to Halliburton.
-
- No one seems to care. Once Bush gets his Social Security
bill through Congress, he and his cronies can rip off what is left and
then say, "Oops sorry, too many baby boomers bankrupted Social Security.
I told you so."
-
- We probably won't know the extent of the burglary until
he gets out of office. It will be too late, of course. Social Security
will be gone.
-
- I guess Bush expects people my age on social security
will just roll over and die.
-
- Patty
-
- Patricia A. Doyle, PhD
- Please visit my "Emerging Diseases" message
board at: http://www.clickitnews.com/ubbthreads/postlist.php?
Cat=&Board=emergingdiseases
- Zhan le Devlesa tai sastimasa
- Go with God and in Good Health
-
-
-
- Comment
- From Charles Victor
- 4-29-5
-
- Hi Jeff...
-
- There is no Social Security trust fund not because it
has been "ripped off" but rather because it never existed in
the first place. The politicians are well aware of this. This is but another
in a long series of fairy tales peddled by Big Brother and has been an
open secret for a long time to those who've taken the time to investigate
the nature of the legal/commercial Matrix running this and every other
nation on the planet.
-
- The Supreme Court ruled Social Security is a form of
welfare in Helvering v. Davis (301 U.S. 619, 81 L.Ed. 1307, 57 S.Ct. 904
(1937)). A careful reading of their decision in Flemming v. Nestor (363
U.S . 603, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435, 80 S.Ct. 1367 (1960)) reveals one has no guaranteed
right in SS benefits, one earns nothing; one has no vested interest in
it and can only get "help" from other SS-payroll taxpayers at
retirement. The following cases also show one has no vested interest or
guaranteed retirement benefits by virtue of paying SS-payroll taxes: Carley
& Hamilton v. Snook, 281 U.S. 66; Knights v. Jackson, 260 U.S. 12,
15; and Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249.
-
- By law and by conract, upon an SS-payroll taxpayer's
retirement FICA and SS aren't required to compensate the retiree.
-
- The ugly truth is that around 2016, SS will be legally
insolvent. Big Brother has put us on notice of this via the media, e.g.,
the August 1, 2001 Los Angeles Times article entitled "Change of Heart
Sought on Social Security Plan". I doubt the gov't ever claimed the
payments are premiums. People just assumed they were even though all along
they told us they were merely taxes. People have spent 30, 40 even 50 years
paying into the system and then upon retirement receive only a microscopic
portion of the total they paid in. If these funds were held in trust on
their behalf and accounted for in their name, how could the funds disappear?
-
- Furthermore the Social Security system meets the definition
of a Ponzi scheme as that term is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 7th
ed.
-
- As one source states it:
- "In 1935 the average age of death in America was
65. Based on this statistic, the instigators of the Social Security System,
led by an economist by the name of Robert R. Nathan, set the age of eligibility
for Social Security benefits at 65. This way, the system could operate
at maximum profitability because, on the average, potential beneficiaries
would die at the time the first payment became due, thus ensuring a clean
sweep of all taxes paid in over the lifetime of the mark (intended victim
in a confidence game), with no disbursements."
-
- I could say more but this comment is becoming too lengthy.
Much has been written on the fraudulent nature of SS if one cares to dig
a little.
|
