Republican Tea Party Candidate goons handcuff reporter.

No, Mr. joepistole, it is not like the enlistment contract I signed when I went into service, I still have that contract, and for services rendered for specific time frames, certain benefits accrue, to be used as a retirement.

Show me the contract, there is none,

Show me the contract you signed, with the Federal Government, there is none.

Your payments are taxes nothing more and you are not investing, buying, or participating in a insurance, annuity, or retirement program.

The Supreme Court in it's decisions points that out very plainly, there is no contract, and as such there is no accrued property rights as would be enforceable in a Insurance, Annuity, or Individual Retirement Plan.

1960 -- Volume 363 -- FLEMMING V. NESTOR, 363 US 603


"It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments." ​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Democrats.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is pure BS mr. roam. We have been down this road many times before. I signed an enlistment contract and no where in that contract did it say anything about benefits or even salary.

The government does not guarantee you a fixed salary in the military. Your salary is fixed by Congress each year. Nor does your enlistment contract say anything about accruing benefits. Your benefits are whatever Congress says they are....just like Social Security.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/joiningup/a/recruiter4.htm

"The agreements in this section and attached annex(es) are all the promises made to me by the Government. ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE HAS PROMISED ME IS NOT VALID AND WILL NOT BE HONORED.

Let me clarify a couple of points: First of all, incentives and entitlements which are available to everyone won't be, and doesn't need to be in the contract. This is because military members are already entitled to it by law. For example, medical care, base pay, and the Montgomery G.I. Bill won't be specified in the contract, because these benefits are available to everyone who enlists in the military."

By Rod Powers, About.com Guide

Your entitlement to a military pension and other benefits are not specified in an enlistment contract mr. roam. And if you have the background you claim, you should know that. Your entitlement to military benefits is no different than the entitlement to Social Security held by all participants in the Social Security program. Social Security participants pay into the program with their earned income (which represents labor expended on the part of the participant). In the military you commit labor directly in exchange for an expected future benefit...just like Social Security.

Your federal pension benefit is as good as the Social Security benefit mr. roam and it is whatever Congress says it is at any given point in time.

God, do you ever get tired of repeating chaff? Apparently not.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

show me the birth certificate.

 

Mr.. joepistole don't you ever get tired of acting like the kid who was just told Santa Clause doesn't exist, just because you stuff your fingers into your ears and run away yelling No..No..No..doesn't change the fact that there is no chaff, just facts, Supreme Court Case facts.

Now explain how the Supreme Court didn't mean what they found as fact and law in their decisions handed down in;

1937 -- Volume 301 -- HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 US 619 citing,

STEWARD MACH. CO. V. COLLECTOR, 301 U. S. 548 (1937)

4. The proceeds of the tax imposed on employers by Title IX of the Social Security Act, supra, go into the Treasury of the United States without earmark, like internal revenue collections generally.........

1960 -- Volume 363 -- FLEMMING V. NESTOR, 363 US 603

It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments." ​

Nothing ambiguous about those decisions, they are clearly spelled out in detail.

Now Mr.. joepistole the enlistment contract does spell out the facts that if you serve 20 years, you can draw a retirement.

It also held a little know codicils, that you could be reassigned from your enlisted branch and specialty, to any branch of service, or service specialty, at the need of the U.S. Government.

 

If that is so, then why are you running away from the issue here and trying to change the subject? The issue is not the court cases you cite ad nauseum. You have repeatedly failed to address the issue which let me repeat once again is your claim that private obligations are somehow more secure than public obligations. It is not the court decisions you like to cite. You are trying to change the subject mr. roam.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No one but you are trying to argue court decisions which reafirm the right of government to make rules and to tax.

Despite proof to the contrary you want to continue to insist otherwise...knowing full well you are wrong. You are lying again mr. roam. Enlistement contracts specify a length of service, bonuses, training, and may specify a rank. And service contracts are for terms of less than 20 years...which is the minimum for retirement under current law.

Prove your claim mr. roam...of course we both know you won't because you are lying yet again.

Your federal pension benefits are no different than Social Security benefits...no more secure and no less secure.

 

Mr. joepistole where's the money? yes tell me where is the money? where is the 10 trillion dollars that is supposedly in the trust fund?

 

Mr. roam, where have you been? It has been stated before the money for Social Security and Medicare is coming from the same source as you federal pension...the general fund.

So why are you asking silly questions? Probably because it fits in with the Republican/limbaugh/fox news fear mongering agenda.

 

Mr. joepistole, I have already informed you of that fact, long ago, now where is the money that is suppose to be in the mythical lock box, the Social Security Trust Fund, the money that was taken from our pay checks to be held in trust for our retirement.

That is what I have been pointing out to your in my post, there is no money in the Trust Fund, it was spent, Social Security is paid out of current funds from the General Fund, and the rest of the money is spent, and then the Government issues a bond from it's self to it's self, and claims to have a fund to draw from when Social Security runs out of money.

Now Mr. joepistole, where is that money? How is the Government going to redeem those bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund? And where are they going to get the money to redeem the bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund?

We already had the money taken in the form of FICA.

New taxes, higher taxes, on new workers, to pay for the retired workers.

How does a ponzi scheme work?

The difference between a Ponzi Scheme and Social Security is that in a Ponzi Scheme you have a choice, to invest, "caveat emptor" and Social Security, the Government takes it and you have no choice about it, but in the end both spend the money, and depend on new suckers to keep the scam going.

 

You are again avoiding the issues and fear mongering. It has been established that the Social Security Trust fund holds federal bonds that are funded by the general fund. The same general fund that also pays your federal retirement benefits.

If Social Security were to use the trust money to invest in private enterprises, that would be socialism. And we all know how you and yours feel about socialism. You are trying to argue a non relevant point mr. roam and spread a little fear along the way.

You are making false comparisons, and using those comparisons to come to false conclusions yet again. You cannot legitmately compare the finances of an individual with the finances of a state. An individual has a finite life. States do not have finite life times as they are not biological organisms. A state can create money, an individual cannot. The money supply of a state can grow as the population grows and as aggregate demand grows without causing economic disruptions. The same is not true of an individual. And individuals can invest in private ventures without being accused of socialism by people like you mr. roam.