Agreed

It amazes me that people will stop at nothing to attack the Constitution. A bunch of child molesting pervs want to have sex with minors, and someone brings up the Constitution??? Give me a break.

The economy will never stabilize as long as we continue to spend more than we earn, and consume more than we produce.

Hopefully it's free as in freedom? Your momma sounds like a very wise woman.

There are news stories all over showing people being investigated by homeland security under the name "terrorist". In PA. they were even targeting so called "Tea Partiers" as terrorists. Say publicly that you are a "Constitutionalist", you run the risk of being branded a terrorist. These stories are well documented outside of MSM. Yes, time will tell if we remain a free country, or a government run state, time will tell.

Supposed to represent, yes. Not sure they really do that anymore, but yes. Support and take care of by over taxation and violation of personal rights, no.

I never said there is not a role for government, there is a perfectly good outline for one in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I just said that I don't agree with the government being the support system for people. You work, get paid, and support yourself. You pay taxes from your income to operate the government. In our current state of affairs, the government has grown beyond what is needed, and is becoming a nanny state. People rely on the government to do the everyday things they should be doing on their own.

What if you cut off the top? Does the whole thing die?
IMO no one is entitled to the earnings of another, that isn't the way it works. Socialist countries tried it, but failed. I would rather have the freedom to provide for me and my own than rely on any government for support, and to receive that support under the government's conditions and stipulations.

Much in the same way that muslims threatened violence over being offended by a cartoon and the burning of the koran?

As long as someone else pays for it, right? This is just the government's cost, without looking at what it will cost employees and employers.

Sorry, I'm still laughing, first time I've seen anyone applaud another huge deficit that can't be afforded, and no one knows how it will be paid for. Maybe that's how some manage finances. "I can't be broke, I still have checks and a credit card"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html

Times Topics: Health Care ReformON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order

http://www.ctj.org/html/ssfund.htm

Q: How is the Social Security system funded?
A: The Social Security system is funded primarily by federal taxation of payrolls. All workers who are not self-employed currently pay 7.65 percent of their gross salary in Social Security taxes. The employer for these workers pays an additional 7.65 percent, for a total "payroll tax" of 15.3 percent of gross salary. In addition, self-employed workers are required to pay 15.3 percent of their self-employment income in payroll taxes, minus certain special deductions. The Social Security portion of this tax applies only to a limited amount of income; in 2005, this limit was $90,000. The limit is adjusted for inflation yearly, and the tax rate itself has been raised at irregular intervals over time. The combined tax rate has been 15.3 percent since 1990.


Last Updated 1/2/2006

How many of those taxes fund social security disability payments? Once again with the IF.

"if they are using a social security number.'


No fund can be fine when more withdraw from it than pay into it.

It isn't the one getting it, it is the thousands upon thousands getting it that adds up.

IF is a big word isn't it? IF they worked, IF they paid in. How many illegals are paying taxes? The fact remains that these programs, social security, welfare, unemployment, were set up as a safety net for workers, not a way of life. Where does the funding come from if not the taxpaying citizens? Where does the funding come from when someone receives benefits, but never paid in? You can't write a check with no income, but the government does it all the time. When did people start thinking that only the rich pay taxes?

yes, yes, no, no, by the way.

Do you not have a deduction for social security on your paystub? Do you not get a letter in the mail every couple years showing your earnings, and what you would receive if retired or disabled? Do you get that back at the end of the year? Do you feel that money should go to someone who has not earned it?

Are you kidding me? Do you want to see my paystub? I pay plenty every week. I don't get any refund. What country are you from? Do you just believe what you read or hear in the news? I pay in plenty to social security, income tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax, utilities tax. You MUST be joking.

Yes it is. The American worker has another mouth to feed. What a victory.

Just more of the typical finger pointing back and forth. 'No, it's their fault." How long are we going to keep up the insanity (repeating the same action, expecting a different result)?