@AmberDru:"How did someone like Obama's illegal alien aunt get on
the dole?"My gosh, Amber... it's not rocket science. Obama
is president. His Attorney General, Eric Holder, the guy that would see her
deported, ain't gonna do nothing. Why should anything be different from
the millions of illegal Hispanics getting amnesty and eventually dole-ites.
How did someone like Obama's illegal alien aunt get on the dole? Aunt
Zeituni, as she has come to be known, first surfaced in the public light in
2008, in the final days of the Presidential election. Then-candidate Obama said
that he was not against the possible deportation of his aunt. "If she has
violated laws, then those laws have to be obeyed," he told CBS's Katie
Couric. "We are a nation of laws." ...(Really, seems he changed his
mind!)Onyango had violated the law, and she knew it. "I knew I had overstayed" she told WBZ-TV's Jonathan Elias when
the two sat down one-on-one. ..Zeituni Onyango Obama's aunt still scamming
systemObama's aunt Zeituni Onyango says U.S. obligated to make her
citizenstill lives in public housing and collects $700 monthly disability
@one old man:"Reagan raided social security several times."The fund was not raided and never has been. Excess SS funds were
invested to be repaid as needed. And where is the safest investment?
Government bonds... SS bonds, which were special bonds, not traded on any
exchange. They don't pay much but the 'funds' is safe.@Twin Lights:"If the money was invested at any reasonable return, it
would make the program largely self-sustaining."Pray tell,
what's a 'reasonable rate of return?' The stock and bond markets
can produce such a return... but they can also go south and stay there for some
period of time. Not a good place to put SS funds because they may not be there
when needed."Instead, the monies were given to the
Treasury."The monies were loaned to the government at nominal
interest rates to be paid back as needed from tax revenue.It's
not rocket science.
"Both sides created this problem."Be careful Twin. That
kind of blasphemy will get you labeled a liberal.
Yes Maverick, I was 5. I got my SS card when I was 10 and worked in a store for
0.10 per hour. I still feel that had SS not been used for other than the intent
of the original plan, and retained in a trust fund for that purpose, we
wouldn't be having this discussion.I do not endorse any Wall Street
solution, I say that only those who pay into it should receive funds from it.
That includes Government officials who exempt themselves..
Just so we are all clear on the facts. Soc. Sec. was heading into trouble in
the 1980s and was "rescued" by Ronald Reagan and TIP O'Neil. There
would be surpluses for decades.If the money was invested at any
reasonable return, it would make the program largely self-sustaining. But the
funds were never put in a true sovereign wealth fund. Instead, the monies were
given to the Treasury. IOUs were written but that means Treasury has to pay
back Treasury - so they essentially mean go get more money from future
generations.We could have done better. But the Republicans put
their part in tax cuts. The Democrats spent their part on programs.Both sides created this problem.
" I am 83 years old and remember the enactment of SS"You
were 5 when the social security act was passed. Somehow, I doubt you remember
it. Again, you were 5. No 5 year old pays attention to politics. You were too
busy playing jacks or learning the colors or how to spell. Besides, your age
doesn't give any credibility to your erroneous comments and letters.
Opinions shouldn't mold your facts but facts should mold and form your
opinions. The bottom line is, social security is a fantastic program. A safety
net. We should never give it away to corrupt and greedy Wall Street investors or
Yes.... Lets go back to the 1920s. Great idea.Lets base everything
on Wall Street. And if your investments fail? Tough luck!
Deseret News does a grave disservice to its print subscribers when it prints
letters containing pantently false information. While on-line readers might
read comments rebutting false information, print subscribers are left in the
dark. On-line comments should and do have more lee-way, but when editors select
letters to print, one would expect a higher standard. Guidelines for our local
paper state:"We review every letter, but some must be rejected
because they are too long; contain libelous or obscene statements; are
illegible; contain factual inaccuracies or unproven allegations; or the writer
neglected to include the necessary contact information of a full name, address
and a phone number where he or she can be reached during business hours."I would expect a church-owned newspaper to have a high standard of truth
and adherence to fact as can be reasonably ascertained
So Doug S, bless your heart, as long as we have wage earners we will have SS and
as long as you and your cohorts don't turn it over to Wall Street as GWB
proposed. We have seen what they do because they are basically unregulated. You
can complain about it all you want but changing SS now will be the greatest
robbery in the history of man because unless we reign them in I guarantee there
will be a repeat of 2008. What will you do Doug when millions of seniors, widows
including military widows and orphans are homeless and hundreds are walking
around Oakley? Slam the door? SS is debt owed to the citizens of the United
States and default is not an option because your investments won't be worth
the paper your statements are written on.
Re:RolandAmenSome people rely on chain e-mails as a
source of information. Many times, these chain e-mails contain
information that is entirely false.I would urge those trying to
defend this letter writer's claims to visit Snopes, type in Social Security
in the "search" box. Alternatively, one can visit factcheck which had
this to say about the chain email containing these claims:"This
elaborate collection of falsehoods is so detailed that we believe it must be an
intentional and malicious effort at disinformation. It grafts some new whoppers
on top of a list that we debunked in April 2004, in a special report we called
"Lies in the E-mail, Part 2." The earlier version, we said, was
"full of laughably inaccurate claims," and this one is worse."
M Kayser.. What planet are you from? I am 83 years old and remember the
enactment of SS and what has happened since it first went into effect. It has
been "ponzi" scheme since its inception with congress using it as their
personal sluch fund to buy votes..
It is sad that so many Americans are filled with so much hate for their federal
government. It’s sort of like the hate you see in a dysfunctional family
of one parent for the other, and the children getting caught up in the war of
All excellent points!A similar list of initial limitations and rose
projections can be made for virtually every other program started by the Federal
government, from Medicare to the Departments of
Education/HHS/Defense/etc./etc.The lesson to be learned, again, is
that, once started, it is just about **impossible** to either reign in or, (now
we're venturing into the realm of the truly impossible) kill a government
program/department/bureaucracy.We should treat the creation and even
the continuation of such things as we would the most noxious of weeds or vermin.
Kill them in the bud if you can but **always** try to minimize them.
The tax rate for Social Security and Disability Insurance is 12.4%. If you are
self-employed, you pay the full 12.4% directly to the government. If you are
employed, you pay 6.2% directly from your paycheck and your employer pays
another 6.2% in lieu of wages. When Medicare is added, the percentage paid is
Thank our lucky stars for Social Security. No other act has increased the life
expectancy as this law. Before Social Security, people worked until they died,
or if they were lucky, they moved in with family. Most people did not have the
resources to save for retirement. The problem with Social Security is allowing
people who should not qualify for it for reasons such as drug dependency and
other questionable disabilities. If there is one thing not to complain about,
Social Security is that item. Just because Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity are
anti-Social Security, does not mean it is a great legacy for our country.
And how many of those abuses were instituted by such revered figures as Ronald
Reagan and others of the GOP?Reagan raided social security several
times. It would be very interesting to be able to find a complete history of
social securities abuses and who was responsible for each of them. But Congress
and other politicians are very good at hiding their tracks.
The morphing of Social Security can be laid at the feet of successive Democratic
administrations. First, the trust fund was abolished and the money put into
Treasury Securities so it could be spent as part of the general fund. Then,
Medicare came along to be funded by Social Security funds. Aid to Dependent
Children was established to be paid from the same pocket and housing provided.
Now, even alsiens are entitled to funding regardless of whether/how long they
have paid into the plan. Now the Democrats are crying that the Republicans want
to destroy what they have built. A "ponzi" scheme that has become
Every single thing in this letter is false.