Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, people need money to live- indeed it would be wonderful if all that money taken from them could actually be invested by them and used by them. Used whenever they had the need of it. Used if they choose to retire at 50 instead of 65 (soon to be 67).
A) How do we fund current beneficiaries then?
B) What happens when you exhaust your retirement funds in old age?
That you gladly hand over taxes based on an amendment that was never ratified goes hand in hand with your desire to be parented until you die.
Sorry to inform you of this, but 42 of the 48 states existing at the time of its proposal have ratified it.
You really are insane. I just pray to god you don't vote.
I gave you a link to the country who has already transitioned- read up on it...that is if you are really interested in having answers. If you are and you want to challenge their transitional challenges ..we'll talk.
Yes, how insane of me to seek economic freedom...just plain old
Because sane people, like you, are always looking for ways to strangle freedoms and bend the knee to mommy government-my only problem with that o course is you want the rest of us to do it as well.
from the link
The Discovery
Article V of the U.S. Constitution defines the ratification process and requires three-fourths of the states to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were fourty-eight states in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of thirty-six was necessary for ratification. In February 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that thirty-eight had ratified the Amendment.
In 1984 Bill Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified. He continued his research at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; it was here that Bill found his Golden Key.
This damning piece of evidence is a sixteen-page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, among whose duties is the provision of legal opinions for the Secretary of State. In this memorandum, the Solicitor lists the many errors he found in the ratification process.
These four states are among the thirty-eight from which Philander Knox claimed ratification:
- California: The legislature never recorded any vote on any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
- Kentucky: The Senate voted on the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of nine in favor and twenty-two opposed.
- Minnesota: The State sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
- Oklahoma: The Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
When his project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited the capitol of every state from 1913 and knew that not a single one had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. Thirty-three states engaged in the unauthorized activity of altering the language of an amendment proposed by Congress, a power that the states do not possess.
Since thirty-six states were needed for ratification, the failure of thirteen to ratify was fatal to the Amendment. This occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified.
What you seem to fail to comprehend is that people should be allowed to decide how they want to deal with their retirement and what kind of insurance they want to buy.
Not when failing to provide for their own old age or disability falls as a burden on the taxpayers anyway - which it does.
Then go cry to your mamma. Or earn your income through capital gains or through rental income - both are excluded. Or go live in Galveston, or become a teacher in Louisiana. Neither pay into Social Security - they have their own retirement systems. Or you could become a farmer and only grow what you need.I have no problem with insurance- I have a problem with being forced to buy it.
THE TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE UP THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE TO PAY TO CURRENT BENEFICIARIES YOU DIMWIT
Great. You should build a time machine, go back in time, and make the same investment choices again.Even in the midst of the market upheavals it has grown.
I would much rather have a portfolio to leave my kids, then 30 years of FICA flushed down the black hole of Treasury.
WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENS WHEN YOU LIVE LONGER THAN YOU EXPECTED AND YOU MONEY RUNS OUT?
What if I die tomorrow; what if I get cancer; what if I win a million dollars? Life is full of risk- no one has a crystal ball. That said planning for ones retirement is not all risk- There are sound investment tools. What people need is their money to take advantage of them. As stated earlier I have no problem with government oversight- I just don't want them taking my money and telling me not to worry...meanwhile I never see it again until I am almost dead...no thanks.
That's pretty much what social security is. Coupled to a disability policy.What you seem to fail to comprehend is that people should be allowed to decide how they want to deal with their retirement and what kind of insurance they want to buy.
Not when failing to provide for their own old age or disability falls as a burden on the taxpayers anyway - which it does.
Then go cry to your mamma. Or earn your income through capital gains or through rental income - both are excluded. Or go live in Galveston, or become a teacher in Louisiana. Neither pay into Social Security - they have their own retirement systems. Or you could become a farmer and only grow what you need.
THE TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE UP THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE TO PAY TO CURRENT BENEFICIARIES YOU DIMWIT
Great. You should build a time machine, go back in time, and make the same investment choices again.
I would much rather have a portfolio to leave my kids, then 30 years of FICA flushed down the black hole of Treasury.
WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENS WHEN YOU LIVE LONGER THAN YOU EXPECTED AND YOU MONEY RUNS OUT?
Its called an annuity
and a diverse portfolio shit for brains.
A) How do we fund current beneficiaries then?
B) What happens when you exhaust your retirement funds in old age?
Sorry to inform you of this, but 42 of the 48 states existing at the time of its proposal have ratified it.
You really are insane. I just pray to god you don't vote.
I gave you a link to the country who has already transitioned- read up on it...that is if you are really interested in having answers. If you are and you want to challenge their transitional challenges ..we'll talk.
I'm not reading a link you can't even explain yourself.
Yes, how insane of me to seek economic freedom...just plain old
Economic freedom does not include paying no taxes.
Because sane people, like you, are always looking for ways to strangle freedoms and bend the knee to mommy government-my only problem with that o course is you want the rest of us to do it as well.
from the link
The Discovery
Article V of the U.S. Constitution defines the ratification process and requires three-fourths of the states to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were fourty-eight states in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of thirty-six was necessary for ratification. In February 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that thirty-eight had ratified the Amendment.
In 1984 Bill Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified. He continued his research at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; it was here that Bill found his Golden Key.
This damning piece of evidence is a sixteen-page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, among whose duties is the provision of legal opinions for the Secretary of State. In this memorandum, the Solicitor lists the many errors he found in the ratification process.
These four states are among the thirty-eight from which Philander Knox claimed ratification:
- California: The legislature never recorded any vote on any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
- Kentucky: The Senate voted on the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of nine in favor and twenty-two opposed.
- Minnesota: The State sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
- Oklahoma: The Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
When his project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited the capitol of every state from 1913 and knew that not a single one had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. Thirty-three states engaged in the unauthorized activity of altering the language of an amendment proposed by Congress, a power that the states do not possess.
Since thirty-six states were needed for ratification, the failure of thirteen to ratify was fatal to the Amendment. This occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified.
Sure thing, now go put on your tinfoil hat. Can you tell me which one of the states the rest of the world knows ratified it has informed Congress that they are in error?
I gave you a link to the country who has already transitioned- read up on it...that is if you are really interested in having answers. If you are and you want to challenge their transitional challenges ..we'll talk.
I'm not reading a link you can't even explain yourself.
Economic freedom does not include paying no taxes.
Because sane people, like you, are always looking for ways to strangle freedoms and bend the knee to mommy government-my only problem with that o course is you want the rest of us to do it as well.
from the link
The Discovery
Article V of the U.S. Constitution defines the ratification process and requires three-fourths of the states to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were fourty-eight states in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of thirty-six was necessary for ratification. In February 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that thirty-eight had ratified the Amendment.
In 1984 Bill Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified. He continued his research at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; it was here that Bill found his Golden Key.
This damning piece of evidence is a sixteen-page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, among whose duties is the provision of legal opinions for the Secretary of State. In this memorandum, the Solicitor lists the many errors he found in the ratification process.
These four states are among the thirty-eight from which Philander Knox claimed ratification:
- California: The legislature never recorded any vote on any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
- Kentucky: The Senate voted on the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of nine in favor and twenty-two opposed.
- Minnesota: The State sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
- Oklahoma: The Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
When his project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited the capitol of every state from 1913 and knew that not a single one had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. Thirty-three states engaged in the unauthorized activity of altering the language of an amendment proposed by Congress, a power that the states do not possess.
Since thirty-six states were needed for ratification, the failure of thirteen to ratify was fatal to the Amendment. This occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified.
Sure thing, now go put on your tinfoil hat. Can you tell me which one of the states the rest of the world knows ratified it has informed Congress that they are in error?
No one has asked to pay "no" taxes. Like most people who get angry and frustrated when they are unable to debate an issue, you attempt to strangle the argument by inserting an "either or" platform that never existed. We are talking about a specific tax, not all taxes.
That's pretty much what social security is.Not when failing to provide for their own old age or disability falls as a burden on the taxpayers anyway - which it does.
Then go cry to your mamma. Or earn your income through capital gains or through rental income - both are excluded. Or go live in Galveston, or become a teacher in Louisiana. Neither pay into Social Security - they have their own retirement systems. Or you could become a farmer and only grow what you need.
THE TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE UP THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE TO PAY TO CURRENT BENEFICIARIES YOU DIMWIT
Great. You should build a time machine, go back in time, and make the same investment choices again.
WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENS WHEN YOU LIVE LONGER THAN YOU EXPECTED AND YOU MONEY RUNS OUT?
Its called an annuity
and a diverse portfolio shit for brains.
Diverse portfolios still only have an expected return equal to that of treasuries. Only problem is they are more volatile . The term "diverse portfolio" kind of hides the fact that if your portfolio consists of stocks and bonds - the stocks will in general move with the stock market and the bonds with the bond market. So when all stocks tank at once - like the Great Depression - millions of people lose their retirements all at once.
You don't understand diverse very well. I suppose an idiot would consider stock and bonds their only investment choices. I made 5.5% on my retirement money between August 5th and the 21st. You had better leave it to the government, your simply too slow.
THE TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE UP THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE TO PAY TO CURRENT BENEFICIARIES YOU DIMWIT
What if I die tomorrow; what if I get cancer; what if I win a million dollars? Life is full of risk- no one has a crystal ball. That said planning for ones retirement is not all risk- There are sound investment tools. What people need is their money to take advantage of them. As stated earlier I have no problem with government oversight- I just don't want them taking my money and telling me not to worry...meanwhile I never see it again until I am almost dead...no thanks.
As stated earlier, its not possible to plan your retirement to assure proper funding as long as you live. You don't understand basic investing. You can't be assured of any returns at all. let alone enough to live on for 40 or 50 years if you live to be really old. Even if you were really conservative, you put everything in treasury TIPS to protect from inflation - you'd get a guaranteed inflation protected return of 2% a year for 30 years. So you'd need 50 times your income. But then what if you live 30 years and then when you go to reinvest they only pay 1%? Then you're fucked.
Either way - the burden of paying those returns still falls on members of society who are actually producing. Do you not get that? ALL retirement is pay-as-you-go. You need food in retirement. Do you save actual food? No, someone grows it not long before you need it, and you effectively trade stock or bonds for it. The productive elements of the economy ALWAYS support those elements which are not producing - the old and the disabled.
OOPYDOO Sez:::
THE TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE UP THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE TO PAY TO CURRENT BENEFICIARIES YOU DIMWIT
if we had taken some of the surplus (when it existed) and used it to voluntarily fund private accounts in exchange for reductions in future benefits to those volunteers..
But he's fine of course with the Prez proposing to steal FICA TAXES in order to fund his brand new "stimulus" pkg.. Taxpayers won't be on the hook TWICE FOR THAT --- will they?
Once today, when his plan causes the fund to run LARGER deficits that have to be covered from the treasury. And we'll end up paying AGAIN to REPAY the debt issuance that will cause in the future.
Paying TWICE for the same benefits??? It's the way SSec has been structured for 30 years now..
It's clear to any rational person that is EXACTLY what is happening here.. Let the deniers spin and scream -- the American people are NOT that stupid to buy "interest payments coming out of the "trust fund"".
You don't understand diverse very well. I suppose an idiot would consider stock and bonds their only investment choices. I made 5.5% on my retirement money between August 5th and the 21st. You had better leave it to the government, your simply too slow.
Good for you. Maybe you can explain what other investment choices the rest of us slow people should be making, then you can explain it to everyone's investment advisors as well, as those will be the folks you're entrusting to not fuck everyone's retirement up and leave us with a generation of old people who can't provide for themselves - and they clearly believe diversification means a certain allocation of stocks and bonds.
if we had taken some of the surplus (when it existed) and used it to voluntarily fund private accounts in exchange for reductions in future benefits to those volunteers..
I am a bit surprised no one has mentioned Social Security was NEVER meant to be your sole source of retirement income. It was to ASSIST. Part of an overall plan.
<insert stock market mini crashes here>
Now, all you have to do is ignore the parts where we recovered from all those events and the stock market looks like a real crap shoot.
P.S. When your within a couple of years from retirement, you need to protect the funds necessary for a payout.
If Congress had made it clear that Soc Sec Trust Fund could ONLY HOLD public issue Treasury Bonds -- then TODAY -- we would be selling those valuable assets on the open market. It would be a bonanza because of the interest rates on those notes coming in at 6 or even 8%..
I am a bit surprised no one has mentioned Social Security was NEVER meant to be your sole source of retirement income. It was to ASSIST. Part of an overall plan.
Maybe its because no one has claimed that it should be your sole source of retirement income.
