New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household on the dole.

Bo-4

Senator
Interesting.. so you call those who've paid into SS and Medicare their entire lives and are now collecting on their investment "on the dole"?

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand.

Cool.. but that's not the way i'd describe them.

Btw.. there were more Bush food stamp additions than there have been Obama food stamp additions.
 

Lukey

Senator
Interesting.. so you call those who've paid into SS and Medicare their entire lives and are now collecting on their investment "on the dole"?

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand.

Cool.. but that's not the way i'd describe them.

Btw.. there were more Bush food stamp additions than there have been Obama food stamp additions.
Screen shot 2012-05-26 at 2.06.23 PM.jpg
 

Bo-4

Senator
I don't need a graph Lukey (yes, the baby boomers are getting old)..

Just tell me if you think SS and Medicare recipients are "on the dole".. thanks!
 
Interesting.. so you call those who've paid into SS and Medicare their entire lives and are now collecting on their investment
Fact. The payroll tax is NOT an investment in social security or medicare. The Roosevelt administration argued, in a 1937 lawsuit against the government on the constitutionality of social security, that since the payroll tax was deposited in the general fund, that it was not 'earmarked' for any special purpose. And the receipts from the payroll tax are not separated into any 'lock box.'

The government has been lying to you, and the rest of us for all of these years


Also, people collecting social security are collecting THREE TIMES what they paid in payroll taxes. If they were only getting what they paid in, and the revenue from the payroll tax hadn't been spent on anything and everything all of these years, their wouldn't have been a problem.
The Roosevelt Administration feared that the Court would rule that the Constitution did not permit federal tax-financed old-age insurance.

>>>On November 12, 1936, George Davis, a stockholder of Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Boston, sued, alleging that the Social Security tax was unconstitutional, and asking that the company be kept from paying it. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts upheld the tax, but the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed it. IRS Commissioner Guy Helvering asked that the case go to the Supreme Court.<<<<

>>>Title VIII’s taxes "are not earmarked for any special purpose." They are "true taxes, their purpose being simply to raise revenue . . . available for the general support of Government." But in 1935 the Administration had told Congress and the public that the purpose of the taxes was to build up a fund to pay old-age annuities.<<<

Quite a scam huh? I wonder how many folks really know about this.

http://socialsecurityinfo.areavoices.com/2012/05/24/may-24-1937-supreme-court-declares-social-security-act-constitutional/
 
So 2.5% of the population is disabled? Who knew? Or are you accusing the disabled of faking their disability?
Yep, and the top one percent can pay for them and everyone else too. According to Obama, who simply wants to take more out of your state, your community and your pocket, if you pay taxes, and send it to him so that he can buy more votes.

Them damn votes are getting awfully expensive.
 

Bo-4

Senator
Btw Sarge, it is true that the average person get more in SS an Medicare benefits than they paid in. And they deserve it to an extent.. interest my friend.

But i'm all for scraping all those with a net worth of a million bucks or more (not counting the value of their primary residence) from the recipient list.
 

OldGaffer

Governor
Btw Sarge, it is true that the average person get more in SS an Medicare benefits than they paid in. And they deserve it to an extent.. interest my friend.

But i'm all for scraping all those with a net worth of a million bucks or more (not counting the value of their primary residence) from the recipient list.
Not to mention 50 years of inflation.
 

Bo-4

Senator
Not to mention 50 years of inflation.
Yep.. that too OG. Sarge will probably argue that the rich deserve to get back what they paid in too. But i disagree. If you have your primary residence.. plus a million or better in worth, then America has been beddy beddy good to you, and you can afford to give back a little.
 
100% of the people in most modern nations can thank their government for providing them with universal health care. If only we could get to that point, we might actually begin to be competitive with them...
 
Sarge, do you have government health care for the rest of your life?
When I owned my business, I was on the same group health plan that my employees were on, except using the VA for treatment of wounds sustained in battle.

When I turned 65, being as it is ILLEGAL to buy private health insurance, one doesn't have much choice, as it also ILLEGAL for a private insurer to sell policies to those 65 and over, with the exception of Medicare advantage, which Obamacare will eliminate once it is fully in affect.
 
100% of the people in most modern nations can thank their government for providing them with universal health care.
Really?

England first started experimenting with socialized medicine in 1911. The experiments were a failure, as they always have been everywhere.

The National Health Program became the law of England in July 1948.

In less than two years, there were more than half a million people on the waiting lists for hospitalization, while some forty thousand hospital beds were out of service because of a nurse shortage. The hospital shortage in Britain has become so acute that many mentally deficient and helpless, aged people are unable to secure institutional care. The only effective means of easing the shortage is to deny hospital admission to the old and chronically ill who cannot be discharged once they are admitted.

In industrial centers, some British doctors have as many as 4,000 registered patients each. Such doctors can give each patient only three minutes per call-three minutes overall, for consultation, diagnosis, prescription, filling out official forms, and maintaining proper records for governmental inspectors.


http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/smoot.htm


Europeans are now learning some hard facts of life about socialized medicine: there's no such thing as a free lunch. The question is whether Congress will learn from Europe's mistakes as it takes the next steps in reforming the American health care system.

For many years advocates of government-run health care pointed to Europe as an ideal, noting that America was the "only industrialized country without a national health care system." Now, however, the European welfare states are slashing benefits in the face of rising health care costs.

A recent front-page story in the New York Times detailed the European cutbacks. According to the article, Britain, France and Germany are all being forced to limit access to care. Rationing, already extensive, is increasing.



The Europeans have run into a very simple economic rule. If something is perceived as free, people will consume more of it than they would if they had to pay for it. Think of it this way: if food were free, would you eat hamburger or steak? At the same time, health care is a finite good. There are only so many doctors, so many hospital beds and so much technology. If people overconsume those resources, it drives up the cost of health care.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hard-lesson-about-socialized-medicine
 
Sarge, are you going to double dip your social security with your military pension? I bet you are
Sorry Bub, that argument doesn't wash. Their is a big difference from 'earning' something that you get, and signing a contract which is agreed upon by two parties, and just getting it because of the fact that you are born.
 
Yes it is Sarge:
Guess that depends on who you want to believe, the government which says it ISN'T or a media organization.

How much proof do you need other than the government own legal argument? The fact is, the payroll tax is NOT a contribution to SS; according to the government's own words; if it was, SS would be UN-constitutional.

THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN SUPREME COURT ARGUMENT:Title VIII’s taxes "are not earmarked for any special purpose." They are "true taxes, their purpose being simply to raise revenue . . . available for the general support of Government."

http://socialsecurityinfo.areavoices...onstitutional/

This is why liberalism is a lie.
 
Top