8 votes

The Cartels Think They're Going To Take Our Social Security

The Cartels Think They're Going To Take Our Social Security

Posted on May 27, 2012 by Henry Shivley
In 2008 the mortgage derivative fraud/scam was discovered as the bubble burst. The largest central banks were wiped out, literally by their own hand. Congress surrendered its power over allocations to the Treasury Department and Henry Paulson was named Treasury Secretary. Then the American people were told that they were going to have to replace the wealth that had been stolen through the toxic derivatives because these privately owned central banks were too big to fail, thus the failure was dumped onto the people.

$32 trillion was stolen. $32 trillion was borrowed in the name of the American people, leaving those people in generational bonded servitude. Now the thieves had only to collect the wealth.

Parasites, like Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and Eric Cantor, who are nothing more than the lapdogs of the international thieves, were left to implement a plan to remove the wealth from the people. You see they could not just declare austerity as in theory the United States is not a socialist country. So they began blaming the fact that our country was broke on we the people. It was Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and food stamps that have caused the collapse, not the international theft

Continue:
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/the-banking-cartels-th...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I think we all know what

I think we all know what Social Security is all about, but damn, this article is pedantic at best. Leaving the errors in fact and grammar aside, why call out three contemporary Republicans, serving in a Democrat controlled Congress, and blame them for a problem that began some 75 years ago? This kind of rhetoric is not helpful.

Here is an example of how SS

Here is an example of how SS is robbing you or helping you:

If you work for 40 years, earning 50,000 a year, your account would be worth about 600,000, at 3% interest compared to the 5-6% Social Security actually earns. You would get about 2,100/month in benefit at the age of 65, which means you are getting shortchanged unless you live past the age of 89. If you had a stay-at-home wife, you'd get 1.5x your benefit, which would take you both to the age of 81.

If you basically had everything go your way; you worked, your wife didn't work, you were both disabled, and you had a dependent, you would be cheating the government as long as you lived past 78.

Another example: If you started working at 25, and worked for 30 years, waiting until 65 to cash out, you would have accrued around 430,000 at 3% interest. That would make you break even unless you live past 84. With the spouse clause as above, it would be age of 80. With everything going your way, it would be 76.

So, in most cases, you lose out. Social Security is designed that way, so that it can always stay solvent.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Language Serving Unbridled Power of Capital.

for an understanding of the financial crisis, the dis'balance, the use of trickery (magic?) & manipulation to usurp people's wealth, read -
The Politics of Language and the Language of Political Regression
by Prof. James Petras
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31018

caution, its a human (not leftist) perspective, say Labor : Capital.

government subsidized corporations fighting against government

itself in who gets to leech from the working men in excuse of funding social security.. you and your dad already spent away your 'social security', if you haven't noticed.. it has no business with the next generation.. wolves on the dinner table pls don't cry foul.

'Your' Social insecurity is already GONE!

It was never 'saved' for you.

The Fed long ago turned it into debt. It's earned value at the time it was collected from you as a tax, was long ago devalued out of existence anyway, leaving you with a pittance of purchase power in place of savings which should have grown in commodity value by being at once sound money, as well as having earned interest!

Neither is the case!

You will have only FRN's... at whatever power of purchase the sum in existence equal... and that is a fixed mathematical value. It is just that no one really knows how little that value is mathematically.

Given the trillions created and placed into the big blender of monopoly paper, that would be around 100,000 FRN $ per loaf of bread... day-old!

If you spend it towards commodities right now you can salvage your wealth and value, throwing the dilution over onto those who do nothing! The distribution effect will soon catch up to everyone using FRN's.

Then we shall see what the real value of your paper becomes!

When all the monopoly sets in the world are heaped onto my couch so I can sneak them onto my stack of bills, and if you play at my house...

... who do you think will win?

I talk to a lot of seniors.

They don't want government hand-outs, all they want back is what they already paid into it...even if it came in a lump sum in the amount that they dished out.

Most of them get WAY MORE than they put in. For example:

if they are on Medicare, the allocation per month is approximately $900-$1000 for that. Then say the senior gets $1100 a month from Social Security. Then say they get "extra help" from Medicare..That's another...ohhh I dunno....$$200 a month ( $99 a month for the Medicare Part B they don't have to pay and $101 for prescriptions and doctor copayment help) and that can be conservative.

Now we are up to: $1000 + $1100 +$200...oh...don't forget if they get housing assistance...here in California...thrown in $750 for that so now we are at $3050 a month....if they retire at 65 and live to 80 which is 180 months we are up to $3050 x 180= $549,000....most people have NOT paid that much in..not even close.

Oh---let's not forget the immigrants who moved here and now they want to import "mom" and she gets another $1000 a month...repeat $549,000 and imported mom didn't pay in anything at ALL.

SequoiaTrees4RonPaul

Myopic

or tunnel vision. Seniors have contributed to SS all their working lives. Medicare since it's inception as well. They should work like any well run insurance co with actuarial set up and no hands in the till. They would have if the government had not stolen it. Also like an insurance co that spreads the risk among many, but count on a figured number of annuitants not living long enough to collect all they have contributed which offsets those who live a long time.

Congress and the the MSM all spew the same bull that Med and SS are unsustainable. Well, yeh, it is after you have stolen it. Didn't Obama just steal $500,000,000. from Medicare and then have the gall to say it is unsustainable. This is enough to make one have apoplexy.

During one of the debates Michele Bachmann said that SS in is a lockbox and safe. If all of Congress is that well informed, no wonder this country is in such dire straights.

Lastly, if it weren't for the fiat $ causing such inflation, you're numbers would be far smaller.

Well, the gov wants us all in the state of serfdom and for them to be the ones we serve. I guess there are a lot of stupid, lazy people out there who think they like the idea. Fortunately, RP is waking up, not only America, but the world.....better hurry, time is very short.

What about all the interest

What about all the interest they would have gotten on that money if they had been allowed to invest it on their own? Many don't live long enough to collect very much. Get more than they paid in? I don't think so.

Yes they do. This can be proven using an HP 10B

calculator, and believe me I have done this calculation more times than I care to count.

for example if someone averaged $23000 over 30 years and had 7.6% taken out for soc. sec. each year and 2.65% for Medicare each year (and they didn't because rates were lower then as were salaries) and don't laugh at the $23000 for 30 years.....you can check and see how much salaries have inflated....

then in 30 years they paid in $2364 a year. Using 10.1% for an interest rate (ok you can use whatever rate you want, but I have to pick a number for now) that means putting away $2364 at 10% for 30 years =
$458,757. At 5% it is $164,638. Problem

--is inflation.
---longer life expectancies than the system was set up for
---funding people who have never paid into the system...eg people who are relatives of new immigrants or people who never were able to work due to disability

Look---I didn't make this stuff up. I just work in financial services. This stuff is written up all over the place. Don't take my word for it. I'm no genius...but it's everywhere.
Plug in your own numbers at:
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/compound-savings...

SequoiaTrees4RonPaul

You are forgetting the

You are forgetting the employer contribution.

Generally, if you retired before 1990, you get a tiny bit more back in social secretary and a tiny bit more back from medicare.

Afterwards, you typically get much less for social security unless you live past 82 and are married with a nonworking surviving spouse.

Medicare, especially those who are younger than thirty, will make money off it. Up to three times as much. However, this is because medicare part d was never paid for and because healthcare costs are predicted to rise astronomically.

This factors in a 3 percent interest rate, about half as much as the actual interest rate. Which technically you have no right to.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

If they can finance the military......

then they can pay for SS. GW Bush already found out the hard way what a third rail it was when he tried (and failed) to steal it.

Austerity = Spending Cuts

Austerity is good, how else are we going to cut spending, other than by actually cutting it?

No one is entitled to their neighbor's property.

If you want government to buy you anything, it first has to steal the money from someone else to pay for it. And I do mean steal, Taxation is Theft!

When government taxes, it takes someones property with the threat of violence and imprisonment. If your neighbor did this to you, you would rightfully deem it a crime.

It is always wrong to coerce peaceful people, especially when the government does it.

When you ask government to provide something for you, you are asking it to commit violence against someone else.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I'm not stealing it from my

I'm not stealing it from my neighbor, retard. I paid it in, it is my money.
Why don't you go after the $32 trillion the international bankers stole from us with the same zeal you display when you are talking about poor people's food?
A person pays even into the safety net out of his our her paycheck for 30 or 40 years. Then through corporate theft, they lose everything. So they go to get a few of those dollars back and BAM, just like that they are a bunch of no-good moochers stealing from their neighbor.
Anyone receiving food is not getting a drop in the bucket of their lawful share of the trillions of dollars worth of our natural resources being stolen, day after day after day, by the corporate elite you worship and seem to want to emulate.

When you start collecting...

When you start collecting, where do you think the money to pay for your social security is going to come from?

The money is going to be coming from the next generation pockets, anything you've already payed in has been spent.

What if the next generation doesn't want to pay for your social security?

Will you support locking them in cages for refusing to pay for it?

I don't want social security, I'd rather invest my money on my own, is it right for government to force me to pay for a service I don't want?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I hate these "generational" type comments.

"What if the next generation doesn't want to pay for your social security?"
"is it right for government to force me to pay for a service I don't want?"

No. But what you are failing to realize is that WE (BabyBoomers) were forced to pay for it also. For 40 years. Just like you don't like contributing to the Social Security of others, WE don't like not receiving what we were forced to pay into for nearly all our lives. Why can't you see that it is the same gripe? The government stole our wealth, and will steal yours. How does that make us to blame? You don't want to pay it....don't. And good luck with that.

Just like WE had no choice, neither do you. We're all victims of a corrupt system we did not create and have no power against, unless we elect Dr. Paul.
You're not a "special" victim here.

Society is not responsible for replacing your stolen property.

So, because the government stole from you, you feel entitled for it to steal from others to make it right?

I'm sure we would all like our money that has been stolen through income and sales taxes back, but it has already been spent, in order to get reimbursed they would have to steal even more.

We have to stop the plunder, not participate in it.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Where in the hell were you

Where in the hell were you two generations ago? The baby boomers paid in more than any generation before them and of course this is where we should stop it. How about we just gun up and come take our money back from those who stole it from us and woe be it to anybody who gets in our way?
Again, you are out to arrest these banksters and get our $32 trillion back, right, you neo-con piece of tripe?

Name calling makes you look childish

Seriously, calling me a "retard" and a "neocon"?

I didn't know neocons were antiwar, believed taxation was theft, and wanted the abolition of the state.

Act your age, unless in the event that you are really twelve years old, then carry on.

"How about we just gun up and come take our money back from those who stole it from us and woe be it to anybody who gets in our way?"

I agree, we need to stop paying tribute to the organized crime syndicate we call "government", they are the ones stealing our money.

I am proposing, that we abolish social security, and everyone be allowed to invest their own money however they choose.

I think we need to arrest the people who stole our money and gave it to the bankers, government.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I called you a retarded

I called you a retarded neo-con because that is how you were acting. If we arrest the bankers and take back the $32 trillion stolen and give to those it was stolen from, we would not need Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, or any other form of socialism because we would all be independently wealthy.
Everybody out there better realize that there are about 40 million formerly middle class American nationals that are ready to rip apart the very next person that tries to take one more thing from them.
Now, in the interest of civility, I will apologize for my insults to you. And no, I'm not 12 years old. I am indeed the man who wrote the article you are commenting on.

I wish

there were 40 million Americans ready to do that, then you have 40 million + 1 :)

Nobody wants to take anything from you that is yours, it's just to the point that not much of this will matter until the dust settles... literally

The government is the thief here.

The thief here is the government, the banks just received the benefit of the theft, like anyone else receiving government subsidies/benefits.

If you really want to solve the problem, you have to stop the thief himself.

If government didn't steal it in the first place and didn't have the power to tax and redistribute, their wouldn't have been any bailouts.

Simply seizing money from the banks and redistributing it, isn't going to fix the problem, you have have to pull the roots of the weed, so it doesn't grow back. Government is the root of the problem.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Wrong. The international

Wrong. The international corporate elite buying our government is the problem. To buy a politician or to be a politician bought is high treason as it nullifies the will of we the people. It doesn't matter if we have 2 in our government or 2000. If they are working for the international socialists, we lose.
All of our natural resources are the real personal property of we the people. If all wealth derived through their extraction, transportation, and production had to go through our hands, we would control our wealth. Then whatever limited government we would have would be the government we want because we would be choosing to pay for it without coercion, and if something popped up we didn't like, we simply withhold the funding. And of course any government official caught taking a bribe must be expediently tried, convicted, and hung in the public square.
If we did these things, we could flip the coin. The government would be miserable and the people would be happy. And really, isn't that the way it is supposed to be?

Government is inherently coercive

Government cannot exist without coercive taxation and coercive monopolization of the use of force.

Just to exist, it has to steal and prevent competition.

"Then whatever limited government we would have would be the government we want because we would be choosing to pay for it without coercion, and if something popped up we didn't like, we simply withhold the funding."

Private Firms can do just that, they can provide security, on a completely voluntary basis, you would pay for a service and they would provide it.

If you didn't like one firm, you could choose another firm and through competition we would see lower prices and higher quality.

Government is a monopoly on the initiation of force, in order to prevent competition it would have to coerce it away.

If a government ceased taxing and monopolizing, it would no longer be a government.

I recommend looking into Anarcho-Capitalism.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

This is a very good article

This is a very good article and is so true. Even Rand seems brainwashed. The "entitlement" TERM IS NOW BRANDISHED AROUND JUST LIKE "UNELECTABLE" oops.

U$ury Rules.

Capitalism is Ok, IF = free-markets, property rights, no forced monopoly, no cartel, voluntary trade /exchange, agreed wage, uphold & fulfill lawful contracts, accepted weights & measure, honest money.

when usury enters - nearly everything gets corrupted.
Banish usury. see debt-clock, and this photo -
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/292140_101508027992...

There is risk..

In loaning capital as well as a loss of time preference of consumption for the lender, there for usuary is very mush just, other wise there would be no credit in a true capitalist society. No one would take risk without the possibility of reward.

How is U$ury just ?

is sea-water sweet ? is 10:00 AM night time. simply put, one only has to be sane to recognize it, that in universal /or natural Law usury is unjust. probably you did not see the photo in the link provided above. answer the question, that - how did all "The wealth of nations" reach the top of the tower / pyramid ??
Or, is there any way to stop the Debt-Clock ??

See, nature at work, the Earth is shaking, clock-towers are falling, tilting,- can we call it "banking" ? or going bank-rupt ?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/05/201252912513531...

Thanks


Far too many, even on this Site, want to overlook the Trillion Dollar theft and crimes of Wall Street, CEO salaries & bonuses, the Trillions of Dollars wasted away overseas, and Corporate Welfare, and then instead blame the poor people for alleged "wealth distribution" away from these rich, crooked bastards.

When 50% of the wealth is controlled by just 1% of the people, it is pretty clear that the rich are not the victims in this Country.

And social security is not a "hand out" anyway. Workers paid into the system their wholes lives, and earned the benefit.

But do not underestimate the criminal, robber baron class here. As George Carlin said: They are coming for your retirement money, and one day they'll get it, they'll get it all .... because they own this place.

More accurately

People were forced to pay for these "benefits", if they decided not to pay, and invest their own money the way they wanted, they'd be thrown in a cage by a man with a shiny tin badge.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard