Koch Bros are trying to destroy social security through misinformation, Must watch video!

reply to post by The Old American

I've said before that if my opting out meant that SS kept every penny I contributed, I'd jump at that in a heartbeat. I've been working for almost 30 years, so that's not an insignificant chunk of change. If they would allow that, or, even better, pay it all back to everyone that has contributed, then abolish the system, Americans could invest in whatever they wanted, how they wanted, if they wanted.

This will never happen, though, because that money is long gone...

According to this pretty nifty calculator, the rate of return on SS is less than 2.5%, depending on when you were born and how much your average annual salary is. You can get close to that in a savings account. A coworker of mine has a checking account that, if he uses his debit card once a month for any purchase (zero minimum limit), and has one direct deposit per month, gets 7% return. Even the most conservative stocks return 4%.

I've been searching and searching for a couple of articles I read several yrs ago, with no luck. In TX, I think it was in Houston, they had a plan whereby people could invest their SS money into private investments. The lump sump when they cashed out was astonishing - everyone had close to a million bucks. I don't remember the details, but the economists that were cited agreed that it was attainable.

You want dignity for the elderly? How about not treating them like children and letting them make decisions for themselves about their own money and lives. The government needs to let us all do that.

TOA is capable of making his own decisions. My dear old mom, otoh, cannot. The mom's need to be taken into consideration also.

We are (were) an extremely wealthy nation, but our leaders went astray. Now we have to start over again. SS is only part of our problems.

Sometimes I think Ron Paul is correct. We spend far too much overseas, money that could be used at home to make us strong once again.

The koch bros. are the liberal scapegoats:

A breakdown of the video the OP posted:

First image: The Koch Brothers in the middle of the iconic Rothschild octopus. Sorry, there is only one Octopus and that is Rothschild, so whenever I see someone trying to switch Rothschild with Koch I immediately think this is propaganda.

Bernie Sanders thinks climate change skeptics are comparable to Nazis, so he's not very trustworthy, and he's telling us the Koch brothers want to destroy social security, so this is just a ploy to get people to think social security is in danger (socialism is the danger).

"Enormous amount of money" 28.4 million dollars, nothing compared to the Bill Gates foundation or Rockefeller foundation. (Bill Gates foundation 33. 5 billion).

Yes, it is unfortunate that they are trying to raise the retirement age, but not because it SHOULD be 65, or 70, but that social security SHOULD not exist.

David and Charles Koch.

The two richest men in the USA.

Children of Fred C. Koch, founding member of the "John Birch Society"

These guys are the scariest MFers in the world IMO. They are the real deal when people talk about "The Powers that Be". They operate in as much secrecy as possible, hold gatehrings..
www.huffingtonpost.com...&title=Rush_Limbaugh

They recently made history by hijacking a public university...

Charles G. Koch Foundation Hires and Fires Economists at Public University
In May 2011, it came to the public's attention that the Charles G. Koch Foundation had bought "the right to interfere in faculty hiring at a publicly funded university." Kris Hundley of the St. Petersburg Times reported that the elder Koch brother's Foundation

"pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University's economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting "political economy and free enterprise.... The contract specifies that an advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered. The foundation can also withdraw its funding if it's not happy with the faculty's choice or if the hires don't meet 'objectives' set by Koch during annual evaluations.... Most universities, including the University of Florida, have policies that strictly limit donors' influence over the use of their gifts. Yale University once returned $20 million when the donor demanded veto power over appointments, saying such control was 'unheard of.'"[4]

They fund hundreds of "Think tanks"
Run a youth development organization worldwide.
Aggressively and consistenatly fund indisputable misinformation campaigns aimed at hobbling the middle class and working class.

Most conservatives operate on the principles of conservatism while these guys are spending their dads fortune to cripple the middle class. They do it with a palpable vitriol for the average man. They are driving to a philosophical return to Capitalistic Monarchy with them leading the ruling class. They could be laughed at if not for the insane amount of resources that their unrivaled wealth affords them. They own large swaths of everything related to politics and opinion, mostly they own people.
Scary SOBs in my opinion.

Originally posted by Indigo5
David and Charles Koch.

The two richest men in the USA.

No, absolutely not

www.walletpop.com...

No. 1: Carlos Slim Helú & family
$74 billion | Telecom | Mexico

No. 2: Bill Gates
$56 billion | Microsoft | U.S.

No. 3: Warren Buffett
$50 billion | Berkshire Hathaway| U.S.

No. 4: Bernard Arnault
$41 billion | LVMH | France

No. 5: Larry Ellison
$39.5 billion | Oracle | U.S.

No. 6: Lakshmi Mittal
$31.1 billion | Steel | India

No. 7: Amancio Ortega
$31 billion | Zara | Spain

No. 8: Eike Batista
$30 billion | Mining, Oil | Brazil

No. 9: Mukesh Ambani
$27 billion | Petrochemicals | India

No. 10: Christy Walton & family
$26.5 billion | Wal-Mart | U.S.

The Mario Bros. haven't even made the forbes list of top 10

Hatred of Koch = liberal propaganda (I'm sure the Koch brothers are a-holes but let's not fool ourselves, they are small time compared to some of the bigger players).

Originally posted by mishigas

This will never happen, though, because that money is long gone...

Thus, Ponzi scheme, which some people here have a problem with acknowledging.

I've been searching and searching for a couple of articles I read several yrs ago, with no luck. In TX, I think it was in Houston, they had a plan whereby people could invest their SS money into private investments. The lump sump when they cashed out was astonishing - everyone had close to a million bucks. I don't remember the details, but the economists that were cited agreed that it was attainable.

Of course it's attainable, as well as sustainable. Private investment puts the decision into the hands of the people in how, when, and if they want to.

TOA is capable of making his own decisions. My dear old mom, otoh, cannot. The mom's need to be taken into consideration also.

TOA's wife would disagree sometimes. But as to your mother, and other mothers and fathers like her, their children can make the decisions for them. That's the role of a son and daughter. In my dotage I would much rather my son make my decisions for me than a group of people that never met me and had no clue of my ideologies or wishes.

Sometimes I think Ron Paul is correct. We spend far too much overseas, money that could be used at home to make us strong once again.

The U.S. military budget for 2010 was $685 billion for fighting wars for "national defense" and artificially propping up the economies of other nations with our military presence. We have military bases in ~120 nations that we are not at war with. And many of them we aren't, nor were we ever, at war with their border neighbor. That's about $215 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. A family of 4 paid over $860 to make other countries safe. That money could have been used much more wisely than a government could ever do.

That is one of the main reason I'm voting for him.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American

That is one of the main reason I'm voting for him.

I haven't made my mind up yet. I generally wrote RP off as a flake because of some of his positions, such as drugs and immigration. But then I think, no one man can change the drug policy of the US, so is that a good nough reason to not vote for him? We're all flakes to some degree.

More concerning is his view on immigration. He gets a poor grade from NumbersUSA, and I just don't understand his stand on E-Verify.

But I digress. There are plenty of threads on candidates; this isn't one of them.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by The Old American

 

That is one of the main reason I'm voting for him.

I haven't made my mind up yet. I generally wrote RP off as a flake because of some of his positions, such as drugs and immigration. But then I think, no one man can change the drug policy of the US, so is that a good nough reason to not vote for him? We're all flakes to some degree.

More concerning is his view on immigration. He gets a poor grade from NumbersUSA, and I just don't understand his stand on E-Verify.

But I digress. There are plenty of threads on candidates; this isn't one of them.

I think on immigration Ron Paul would say the states should decide, because Arizona will have a much different policy than Ohio (and Ohio will benefit if Arizona has a policy that makes sense not one that is federally mandated).

But as for the role of the federal government, I would think Ron Paul would allow for easier means to become a U.S. citizen. Since he is for free trade, I would expect him to almost be more liberal than the liberals, because he would probably legalize all of them provided they obey the law of the land. Again, there would be no restrictions from the federal level, so Ron Paul really would legalize all illegals (so in other words how can a liberal not like Ron Paul), but the states would obviously need some laws in place, but mostly the enforcement of natural laws, as opposed to RACIAL laws. Theft by anyone should deserve punishment, so to first decide if the person is legal or not is really just getting in the way of justice.

Maybe another Paul fan can argue this point, but I really don't see why he would be opposed to immigration provided that the immigrants are obeying the law of the land. It would jive with free trade after all. So again, how could a liberal not like Ron Paul?

reply to post by filosophia

I think on immigration Ron Paul would say the states should decide, because Arizona will have a much different policy than Ohio (and Ohio will benefit if Arizona has a policy that makes sense not one that is federally mandated).

He may say states rights, but imo it is a federal issue, goes along with defending our nation.

Let me clarify one thing - I'm talking illegal immigration, although you make some great points about legal immigration.

So again, how could a liberal not like Ron Paul?

You're definitely asking the wrong person, as I am conservative.

Are you familiar with E-Verify? Requires employers to verify an employee's legal status for work, citizenship. RP says employers should not be required to enforce E-Verify, since that is the job of the feds. I disagree.

reply to post by mishigas


If it's not written into the constitution, Ron Paul would say it's not a federal issue. I don't know enough to cite which part of the Constitution he would refer to, I'm sure there are better experts on ATS than myself on this issue, but I'm sure enough that he would say if it's not in the constitution it's NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE.

reply to post by filosophia


You are probably right, that's what he'd say. Article 1 Section 8 states

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So it is a federal duty, imo.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by filosophia

 

You are probably right, that's what he'd say. Article 1 Section 8 states

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So it is a federal duty, imo.

Oops, I didn't see that this was this thread, I thought it was a Ron Paul thread, I had some information I looked up but it wouldn't be appropriate putting it here. Find me on a Ron Paul thread or PM me if you want to know.

Originally posted by The Old American

I've said before that if my opting out meant that SS kept every penny I contributed, I'd jump at that in a heartbeat. I've been working for almost 30 years, so that's not an insignificant chunk of change. If they would allow that, or, even better, pay it all back to everyone that has contributed, then abolish the system, Americans could invest in whatever they wanted, how they wanted, if they wanted.

You want dignity for the elderly? How about not treating them like children and letting them make decisions for themselves about their own money and lives. The government needs to let us all do that.

/TOA

But Old American SS is not a retirement fund, it's not meant to give you interest back, etc. It's not guaranteed to give you anything back because that is not what it is for. I've already highlighted some of the things SS is for in an earlier post.

No one is stopping you from putting money into a savings account or invest it, etc.

Expecting everyone to invest their money, etc. is simply not going to happen. There are over 300 million people in this country and there are so many scenarios that can arise for someone that forces them to rely on SS.

Maybe the government can take a small chunk of change out of everyone's paycheck and invest it. I wouldn't mind that and I believe some Republicans are advocating that but that in no way replaces SS.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by Indigo5
David and Charles Koch.

The two richest men in the USA.

No, absolutely not

www.walletpop.com...

No. 1: Carlos Slim Helú & family
$74 billion | Telecom | Mexico

No. 2: Bill Gates
$56 billion | Microsoft | U.S.

In the USA...Not the world...The brothers rank 18 (tied) in the world of Billionaires as independants, the two brothers combined rank 4th in the world.

Koch Industries, Inc. (/ˈkoʊk/) is an American private energy conglomerate based in Wichita, Kansas, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments. Koch also owns Invista, Georgia-Pacific, Flint Hills Resources, Koch Pipeline, Koch Fertilizer, Koch Minerals and Matador Cattle Company. The firm employs 50,000 people in the United States and another 20,000 in 59 other countries.

Koch companies are involved in core industries such as the manufacturing, refining and distribution[1] of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching,[4] finance, commodities trading, as well as other ventures and investments.

In 2008, Forbes called it the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill) with an annual revenue of about $98 billion,[5][6][7] down from the largest in 2006. If Koch Industries were a public company in 2007, it would rank about 16 in the Fortune 500.[8]

Charles and David H. Koch each own 42% of Koch Industries, and Charles has stated that the company will publicly offer shares "literally over my dead body".

42+42 equals 84% of a company that does 98 Billion in annual revenues....you do the Math.

Forbes has them (tied) at #5 in the USA with each brother worth what Forbes conservatively estimates to be 21 Billion a piece. Combined the Forbes estimate puts them at 42 Billion, just shy of Gates and Buffet estimates.

See here:
www.forbes.com...-1__225

Nice try though...

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism

Originally posted by The Old American

I've said before that if my opting out meant that SS kept every penny I contributed, I'd jump at that in a heartbeat. I've been working for almost 30 years, so that's not an insignificant chunk of change. If they would allow that, or, even better, pay it all back to everyone that has contributed, then abolish the system, Americans could invest in whatever they wanted, how they wanted, if they wanted.

You want dignity for the elderly? How about not treating them like children and letting them make decisions for themselves about their own money and lives. The government needs to let us all do that.

/TOA

But Old American SS is not a retirement fund, it's not meant to give you interest back, etc. It's not guaranteed to give you anything back because that is not what it is for. I've already highlighted some of the things SS is for in an earlier post.

No one is stopping you from putting money into a savings account or invest it, etc.

Expecting everyone to invest their money, etc. is simply not going to happen. There are over 300 million people in this country and there are so many scenarios that can arise for someone that forces them to rely on SS.

Maybe the government can take a small chunk of change out of everyone's paycheck and invest it. I wouldn't mind that and I believe some Republicans are advocating that but that in no way replaces SS.

edit on 27-6-2011 by origamiandurbanism because: (no reason given)

My position must be unclear. Sometimes my verbiage is confusing and I don't get my thoughts in the right order. I intend on teaching history, and I need to work on that The crux of my problem with SS is not that it is a retirement fund with no return. My problem is that it is a fund fueled by theft.

We have zero choice whether or not to contribute. None. You will pay, period. But at the end of the day, there is no guarantee that I, or my heirs, will get a dime back. Social Security's only point is taking money from you to give to me. It is the purest, ideologically, Socialist program in America's history.

SS is much worse than Medicare (which is one program I'm finding I might not have as much of a problem with that I thought I did) or welfare. If I get old enough to qualify for Medicare it will be there for me (excluding its impending bankruptcy). If I get poor enough to qualify for welfare, it will be there for me. If I get old enough to qualify for SS, it may or may not be there for me.

And if I die tomorrow? Enjoy the free money. My wife and son don't get any of it as an inheritance. But some old lady in Kalifornia is living on her fixed income from it. This I have a serious problem with, my friend. And I fail to understand how so many of those not benefiting from it currently don't seem to have a problem with it. It really blows my mind.

/TOA

Originally posted by filosophia
(I'm sure the Koch brothers are a-holes but let's not fool ourselves, they are small time compared to some of the bigger players).

Not small time and they are indeed a-holes...take a look back in time to 1997 when the family fought publicly...Racketeering, stealing oil from Native Americans and blackmail...and that is what the other Koch brothers accused David and Charles of!

money.cnn.com...

Originally posted by The Old American
And if I die tomorrow? Enjoy the free money. My wife and son don't get any of it as an inheritance. But some old lady in Kalifornia is living on her fixed income from it. This I have a serious problem with, my friend. And I fail to understand how so many of those not benefiting from it currently don't seem to have a problem with it. It really blows my mind.

/TOA

SS has survivor benefits. Maybe I am confused with what you are saying?
See here
www.ssa.gov...

Originally posted by mishigas

We cannot eliminate SS, that is for sure. But we must change it. Or replace it with something else. I think the solution starts with dividing the donor/recipients into 2 groups, one age 18-42 and one 43-65. The younger group will be under a different plan. And keep the pols hands out of the fund, under penalty of prison!

Have you studied the Ryan plan? I have not, other than what I hear on the news. Some agree with it, some not.

I agree, SS needs to be reformed. And yes, politicians and the government really should not be using that on other things.

I haven't studied Ryan's plan, just the short soundbites I've heard, which makes me not want to go any further.

Originally posted by filosophia
Maybe another Paul fan can argue this point, but I really don't see why he would be opposed to immigration provided that the immigrants are obeying the law of the land. It would jive with free trade after all. So again, how could a liberal not like Ron Paul?

edit on 27-6-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

Liberals are in favor of making all illegal immigrants citizens? That's news to me. I share some similar views to Liberals but consider myself an Independent, but I have friends who are Liberals and they definitely do not support illegals becoming citizens. They seem to be just as frustrated about the issue as some Teabaggers and Libertarians.

Personally, I'm more than convinced that Paul's economic policies would be disastrous for our country.

Originally posted by The Old American

We have zero choice whether or not to contribute. None. You will pay, period. But at the end of the day, there is no guarantee that I, or my heirs, will get a dime back. Social Security's only point is taking money from you to give to me. It is the purest, ideologically, Socialist program in America's history.

/TOA

OK, I understand what you're saying TOA, but I don't know what the alternative is. There are 300 million people in this country, some need (or will end up) needing help from the government and some will not, but everyone needs to contribute to ensure that it happens.

The way I view it is, this is part of being a citizen in this country. I'm all for individual rights but we also need to contribute.

I'm not saying SS is perfect the way it is now, but we need some form of it in place.

reply to post by origamiandurbanism

I haven't studied Ryan's plan, just the short soundbites I've heard, which makes me not want to go any further.

Really? That's interesting. It seems that those familiar with it either hate it or love it. Well, maybe 'love' is a bit much, but they agree with it. Which all makes it sound like it is a partisan issue. Here's something from the CBO, which is allegedly non-partisan:

B Traditional retirement benefits would be reduced below those scheduled under cur-
rent law for many workers who are age 55 or younger in 2011. People with lower
earnings would experience smaller reductions in benefits, and those with higher
earnings would experience larger reductions. Current beneficiaries and workers
who are age 55 or older in 2010 would experience no change in benefits.

B A system of individual accounts would be established in 2012. In that year, workers
who are age 55 or younger would be able to participate in voluntary individual
accounts, funded with a portion of their payroll taxes. As necessary, the govern-
ment would make payments to account holders during their retirement to guaran-
tee that their contributions earned a rate of return at least equal to the rate of
inflation.

B A new special minimum benefit exceeding that under current law would be estab-
lished for workers with at least 20 years of earnings that were less than or equal to
the earnings of a full-time worker making the minimum wage.
The Roadmap would also eliminate the income and payroll tax exclusions for
employment-based health insurance. As a result, more earnings would become taxable
for Social Security purposes, thus boosting future benefit payments, and payroll tax
revenues credited to the Social Security trust funds would increase.

Nothing alarming jumps out at me.