One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: usewillow
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16 next>>
Nov 2, 2016 21:38:19   #
As a DAV, the one path Clinton took pertaining to Benghazi was enough for me. To ignore a cry for help from an American representing this country to and in a foreign country is a reason to be tried for murder. This woman got hundreds of requests prior to the destruction of a building considered American soil and killing our Ambassador. This woman would not send help and then lied to all of America to cover her own "Ass" and that of this president. The situation should have been dealt with in a declaration of war response as we did after Pearl Harbor. That was no "honest mistake" as Obama said just recently on national TV about her actions while she was the Sec. of State. He wants us to forgive her by letting her become the president; not by me and not in my lifetime.
Go to
Nov 2, 2016 13:12:27   #
Progressive One wrote:
whose to say what is enough?...after centuries of discrimination, less than one century is enough? The best job ever had said AA applicant on it at the interview. It was a job to go all over the world tracking missiles on a ship,mainly Russia. And contrary to what racists like to believe that AA is for lesser candidates, it is really an opportunity a black wouldn't have gotten otherwise despite the qualifications. I was 26, had been an EE in a federal lab after working internship with Houston Lighting and Power during school 3 times. I also had around 80% of my Masters finished. So to those who think AA is for the lesser qualified, ask yourselves what were your qualifications at 26. worked my ass off and people want to act like it is a lie. my interviewers told me I was really highly qualified and basically offered me the job based out of Cape Canaveral because that microprocessor I designed with was the same CPU that ran the ships systems. Condi Rice was a professor at Stanford Univ at 26 because of AA and she damn sure wasn't a slouch. racists would have told her black ass to go cook or pour coffee back in the pre-AA days. Black men with Ph.D.'s were working as busboys and waiters and to some of you that is just fine. Same with Colin, a four or five star general. When I went on the ship, my white counterpart had radar experience in the military but no degree. Others told me he always had offhand comments about me but I didn't give a shit...........I knocked heads with him because if he was there I deserved to be also. You people never had to fight for equality. I been on interviews where they didn't even talk about the job...they wanted to know what I learned in classes and looked at me and then my resume and then me as if it was a lie. I even had a white male grad student ask me "what qualifies you to teach this course?" I been to OPP twenty + years ago............
whose to say what is enough?...after centuries of ... (show quote)


At 26 my only qualifications said I was really good with weapons. So, I was one of the US Army's first Sniper Instructors and was honored to have helped develop the Sniper Weapons system and military training which has been carried on by exceptional men and women who have brought honor and valor to this nation. Yes many of them were black but they were just as concerned for their country as any others in our profession. Further, I had already served 8 years in the military. Then Vietnam and other places. In 1976 I was too disabled to continue in my service to my country. Now we stand on a brink about to allow a known law breaker to run for the highest office in the land. If she had already paid for her mistakes as society demands I would not object to her running. When a society demands a person pay a certain debt for their crimes then that debt cannot continue and their rights as citizens goes on.
Go to
Nov 1, 2016 18:46:44   #
roy wrote:
No i dont like all of our jobs disapearing but trump want do anything about it,the reps and bussiness want let him,if reps.keep control they want let him do anything ,just like obama,things they will let him do destory ss and medicare.


I will address Social Security first along with the lie about the national debt. We for sure owe a debt imbalance with other trading countries because of the tariffs on different goods. The truth of the debt is most of the 19 plus trillion is owed to other government sections and bonds sold within the US and to banks. To show about the SS here is the situation. After you read it please then make note of the final statements.

Debt Held by Federal Accounts
Debt held by federal accounts is not considered public debt - it is the amount of money that the Treasury has borrowed from itself. That may sound funny, but it means that the Treasury borrows surplus money from one trust fund and gives it to another trust fund. For example, the Treasury might borrow money from Social Security to finance current government spending in another area. At a later date, the government must pay that borrowed money back. Federal accounts currently hold 28% of the national debt.
(Note: The Federal Reserve is not counted as "debt held by federal accounts" because the Federal Reserve is considered independent of the federal government). In other words it is a private company running our country’s finances.
The U.S. debt is more than $19 trillion. Most headlines focus on how much the U.S. owes China, which is one of the largest foreign owners. Fewer people know that the Social Security Trust Fund, aka your retirement money, owns most of thenational debt. How does that work, and what does it mean?

On August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Social Security Act . It created a program to pay an income to retired workers (65 or older). The funds for Social Security came from payroll taxes, known as FICA. The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1937 to manage the income collected from these taxes so they could be redistributed as Social Security Income.
Since then, the Trust Fund has received more in income than it's paid out in benefits. That's because of America's demographics. Until recently, there were 2.9 workers for every beneficiary. More money has gone into the fund via payroll taxes than has gone out as benefits. Thanks to those decades of surplus income, the Fund had $2.7 trillion in invested assets as of 2014. (Source: 2015 Annual Report, Table 1)
It's also been because of tax hikes and adjustments to benefits. In 1977, the payroll tax rate was raised from 6.45% to 7.65%. The Trust Fund has held a surplus since then. (Source: Social Security History)
The Fund also receives interest income from its investments in "special issue" securities. The rate of return is determined by a formula enacted in 1960, and it changes each month. The average rate for each month in 2014 was 2.271%. However, the average rate for all Fund assets ($2.6 trillion) was higher, 3.358%, because the fund still holds bonds from past years when interest rates were higher.(Source: Social Security Administration, Fund FAQ)

Now for some fancy math:

In 2011, the situation worsened. The Fund's total costs were $736.1 billion, including $725 billion directly paid in benefits. However, its income from taxes and investments was only $702.4 billion. The Fund required $102.1 billion from the General Fund, making it the first year the Fund contributed to the budget deficit.

My math must be bad if I take the total costs of 736.1 and subtract my income of 702.4 that leaves me short some 33.7 which could have come from the 2.6 trillion. But our government took 102 billion from the general fund and charged it off to SS. If that is their math it is no wonder we are short money.

OK here is what Congress has to say about the SS fund (or lack of one). Congress did not make a contract with the people when it created the SS act. That allows them to stop giving out any money at any time of their choosing by a simple majority vote. The tax would continue but the fund that was borrowed was not replaced with bonds that must be honored although the SS people want us to believe that it is. Congress over the past years has raided over 2.5 Trillion dollars from the fund and there is no guarantee they must replace it. Many people do not know about this because of a mass revolt not only by the old people but the young ones being made to pay into it. Then this same government gives billions to foreign governments while destroying our economy. Does that sound like an American running this country?

I don't know about you but I could use some of that 6 billion Clinton lost track of while Sec. State.
Go to
Nov 1, 2016 18:25:40   #
roy wrote:
What he should have done his job in the first place,if they had these laptops they should have already been checked,im sure if trump wins he will still have a job and a lifetime pass to all of trumps golf courses


You can't really expect anyone to think or even have a wild dream that Trump is responsible for Clinton's e-mail crimes and they are crimes no matter that the crooked DOJ will not prosecute her. She used these computers to try and keep anyone from filing a freedom of information request for public records that she would have had to produce if she had used a government computer. That fact has already been disclosed. I don't know where the leak came from to Wiki L but I do know people do not seem concerned about her actions (a crime she admitted but she said I am sorry so that is good enough???) but more about where they came from. They came from an insecure personal computer that she used and knew was illegal. Next time you are caught speeding or running a stop sign or any other crime just tell the police you did not intend to do a crime and see if they let you go. I think the news carried a "Clinton excuse" to court and the judge said no. Why not if it works for her then it should work for all of us because "no one is above the law" right!
Go to
Nov 1, 2016 14:35:29   #
Just in case the readers are not old enough to have lived back then, here is the pardon...

“NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.”

Take notice of the words of the crime(s) included in the pardon. They include crimes committed or MAY have committed.
Go to
Nov 1, 2016 14:28:41   #
Progressive One wrote:
American monarchies

By Mark Oppenheimer
WHEN I vote for Hillary Clinton in a week, I will be voting for a smart, competent woman and the only candidate this year who has not bragged about sexual assault, blanked on where Aleppo is, or endorsed pseudoscience about the dangers of wireless Internet. In a field that includes Donald Trump, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, my choice is as clear as a glass of Trump Natural Spring Water (available at his golf clubs worldwide).
Nevertheless, I will cast that vote with a mutter of discontent, or maybe a Trump-like sniff. In a hemisphere where having the right relatives seems to be getting more, rather than less, important, Clinton makes the United States look like a monarchy.
If she wins, four of the last five American presidents will have belonged to either the Clinton or Bush families. And that’s not unusual on this continent. Look up or look down: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the son of a former prime minister, and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto is the nephew of former governors on both sides of his family.
Put another way, if Clinton wins, all three heads of state of the NAFTA countries, parties to a treaty that many believe has benefited the wealthy at the expense of the common people, are members of an undemocratic elite, one that depends on blood ties rather than brains.
We can keep going: Sen. Tim Kaine, who would be next in line for the presidency, won his first elective office with the help of his father-in-law, a former Virginia governor. The last Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, was the son of a former governor of Michigan. Evan Bayh, who may well win back his old Senate seat in Indiana, is the son of a former senator. The governor of California is the son of a governor of California. The governor of New York is the son of a governor of New York.
Of course, some people with the right relations are exceptionally qualified in their own right. Clinton, as a former senator and secretary of State, has unmatched qualifications for the presidency. Trudeau seems to be a decent person and a deft politician.
Still, it’s troubling that a woman of Clinton’s gifts needed the right husband to ascend the political ranks. Her trajectory is reminiscent of female leaders from less developed countries, where women’s rights are still contested, like India’s Indira Gandhi and Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto, both daughters of prime ministers. In more advanced economies, women have led governments without being related to famous men: England’s Margaret Thatcher, for example, or Germany’s Angela Merkel, daughters of a grocer and a pastor, respectively.
How many qualified or simply decent men and women languish in obscurity, excluded from the upper echelons of public life, because the well-related suck up all the oxygen?
If Clinton had never run for Senate, maybe her job would have gone to Rep. Nita M. Lowey, a gifted graduate of Bronx Science and Mount Holyoke College, rival women’s college to Clinton’s alma mater, Wellesley. Or maybe another effective longtime New York legislator, like Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, would have won the seat.
We’ll never know, because nobody ran against Clinton in the Democratic primary. All possible opponents knew that Clinton’s advantages of fame — and fortune, in the form of fundraising dollars — were nearly insurmountable.
Throughout American history, voters have had conflicting impulses. We cherish the story of the self-made man, the Andrew Jackson or the Abe Lincoln, the Harry Truman or the Barack Obama. But we also have a romance with aristocracy, with famous names like Adams and Roosevelt and Kennedy. In recent years, our notion of aristocracy has expanded to include movie actors, like Ronald Reagan, self-funded billionaires, like Ross Perot, and now actor/ billionaire chimera, Donald Trump.
This pseudo-monarchical tendency is thoroughly bipartisan. There is a photograph going around on social media (I saw it shared from a Facebook page called Occupy Democrats), with the title “Republicans’ Worst Nightmare,” that shows a banner reading, “Hillary 2016 — Michelle 2024 — Chelsea 2032 — Malia 2040 — Sasha 2048.”
I get why my fellow Democrats relish the thought of all those women, black and white, like mothers like daughters, ruling our country. I am sure we could do worse (“Melania 2024 — Ivanka 2032 …”). But didn’t we fight a war to be free of hereditary leadership?
Today, it’s the British who can teach us that, for the daily work of government, bloodlines are no way to go. Their current prime minister, Theresa May, is the daughter of a hospital chaplain. Her family was useless in winning votes, and unlike the Bushes and Clintons, they didn’t raise money. They just raised her.
MARK OPPENHEIMER, a contributing writer to Opinion, is the author of three books, most recently “Wisenheimer:
A Childhood Subject to Debate.” He is the host of the podcast
American monarchies br br By Mark Oppenheime... (show quote)


In place of looking at all that information(?) you should try looking at this...

This law, 18 US Code 2071 (b), is the law Mrs. H. Clinton violated while holding office as the United States Secretary of State. Here is the reading of the appropriate code section:

(b)
“Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

The whole paragraph has compound sentences: "The structure of a compound sentence sends certain messages to readers, no matter how you fill in the blanks. First, it tells readers that the sentence contains two relatively important ideas, each one deserving its own independent clause. Second, it tells readers that these two ideas are approximately equal in importance, since they are balanced as a pair. And third, it alerts readers to the relationship between the two ideas, depending on the connector. For example, and suggests that the two ideas are being added together, but indicates that they are being contrasted, and or tells us that they are alternatives. A semicolon suggests balance between two similar or sharply contrasting statements."

By following the rules of punctuation we can easily and accurately settle on the things she willfully did.

So let’s break this down to her (Mrs. Clinton’s) actual actions pertaining to files that were considered work related. Mrs. Clinton did willfully and unlawfully initiate work related documents to be placed on her private computer. Mrs. Clinton did willfully and unlawfully allow work related documents to be removed or destroyed from her private computer. We could proceed further, however those two actions alone fulfill the requirements to be prosecuted under the law as shown in this document. Even if Mrs. Clinton is not fined under this title (18 US Code 2071 (b) or imprisoned, she is still disqualified (if found guilty) to hold any office under the United States as per the cited US Code. However, Mrs. Clinton has admitted and the FBI has stated she did in fact do these actions. You should take notice that “intent” is not mentioned in this section of the Code. Further, “ignorance of the law is no excuse” is a statement we have heard many times and by virtue of her position she either knew or should have known what she did was illegal.

Any person with the knowledge of and the authority to take legal action to implement this US Code against Mrs. H. Clinton and does not do so is guilty of dereliction of duty. If the legal action allowed and demanded by this US Code (18 US Code 2071 (b)) is not taken in a timely manner then later action could be implied as “election tampering” which would give the President reason to intervene on behalf of Mrs. Clinton. A pardon usually cannot take place unless the person is first convicted of a federal crime but the President may have other options. One of these options would be a blanket pardon which pardons crimes committed or may be committed in the future sort of like Mr. Ford did for Mr. Nixon.

Now it seems that Mr. Comey is being accused of tampering with the election for doing his job too late. He should have kept his mouth shut during the previous investigation and just presented the facts and let the judicial branch choose what to do. Now he is a scapegoat.
Go to
Nov 1, 2016 14:14:31   #
Progressive One wrote:
I'm at work and teaching a class online...no homework for me......I GIVE assignments............the little OPP time I take is too much..........


Nice try to avoid the challenge.
Go to
Nov 1, 2016 14:09:03   #
Progressive One wrote:
when I present technical material, all you do is run and hide and them re-surface with ignorance...since you claim you are a PE, you should know plenty of EE's who could debunk what I say but you run from that also...everyone knows it easier to steal a business card as opposed to knowing the field professionally.....so if you really want to shut me up on a non-ignorant basis...let's talk engineering and see what you are made of......we can even talk about the basic curriculum in real time with no time for cut and paste.....don't bitch out like ao and then re-surface with monkey pictures to hide the fact you bitched out....and then reward yourself on some foolish ass bullshit basis, like shutting me up...bring out your experience in detail and I'll do the same. Starting with Houston Lighting and Power as an intern, Naval Air Warfare Center, Cape Canaveral/Patrick AFB-Missile Tracking Ship and then Rockwell-Shuttle. Let's see what you are made of since you like to talk ignorant hillbilly shit and not much else......with all those letters on that business card, you should be able to make what I did look like child's play because you worked as a PE....I have 10 years as a EE and the rest is all managerial and academic. So there you go AO-Jr. See if you are up to the Pepsi challenge...I'm not calling names are talking BS..let’s go forward for real with real issues...not bullshit smack talk or political commentary.........technical only since you are the PE and not me………….
when I present technical material, all you do is r... (show quote)

With all that education and experience you should be able to read this and answer my question at the end. I will admit I have looked and could not find the answer. However since it was written by other Presidents and updated for years by each president while in office I had to use "cut and paste" but the question is all mine.

All this goes to Clinton if she gets into office, dictatorship anyone?

All the following is designed to give complete power to the president in times of emergency or war AND CAN BE USED DURING PEACE TIME. The determination of what is a declared emergency is also his call. Lastly I could find no direct removal of the power he gave himself. There is one more item not shown here but it is a critical part of his situation…

Now that it is legal for the military to accept illegal persons into it we are soon destined to have an Army (which includes all other branches) of non-Americans armed with the latest weapons as our protectors. Has anyone thought about them being used as the enforcers of martial law? If push comes to shove against the citizens of America whose side do you think the illegal in uniform would help?
Just a thought to go along with the order parts of it are shown below, which is autocratic in its insidious nature.

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture (Barack Obama announced Vilsack's selection to be Secretary of Agriculture on December 17, 2008. His nomination was confirmed by the United States Senate by unanimous consent on January 20, 2009. He is the only current member of the U.S. Cabinet who has served since Obama took office.) with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy (Secretary Moniz has played a crucial role in negotiations toward a comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, directly negotiating technical details with the Iranian atomic energy minister Ali Akbar Salehi, an MIT graduate, and reassuring President Obama that concessions important to the Iranians would not pose a major threat) with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Sylvia Mary Mathews Burwell (born June 23, 1965) is an American executive who has been the 22nd United States Secretary of Health and Human Services since 2014. Previously she was the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget from 2013 to 2014.) with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation (Anthony Renard Foxx is an American politician currently serving as the United States Secretary of Transportation, a position he has held since 2013. Previously, he served as the Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, from 2009 to 2013. Wikipedia) with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense (Ashton B. Carter is the 25th Secretary of Defense.) with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce (The 38th Secretary of Commerce is Penny Pritzker, who was appointed by President Barack Obama on June 26, 2013.) with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.

“This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA

I think it means no person can bring legal action against this order in any form.

NOTE; WHAT DO THEY MEAN BY NON-EMERGENCY CONDITIONS?????

If the national defense is concerned it is an emergency.
Go to
Oct 28, 2016 13:56:37   #
Alicia wrote:
*************************************
He probably didn't respond because he does not deal with uneducated boobs. That's probably why he refused Trump.

Your assumption that I am uneducated is exactly why people like you want a known crook to gain the White House which she and her husband stole from while they were there the first time. She or her husband by virtue of their position knew it was illegal or they should have known it was a theft. How many other people that take things from a residence get the option of returning some of the items and get off totally free? Unfortunately, that is just a very tiny example of her mistakes one of which directly cost the lives of four Americans that were serving their country. Read my other post about her and for sure ignore everything she has done because she is a woman or because she is a Democrat. That for sure makes her the ideal choice.
Go to
Oct 27, 2016 16:36:49   #
Bad Bob wrote:
Who will win the presidency?

Chance of winning
FiveThirtyEight

Hillary Clinton
84.4%

Donald Trump

15.6%


FiveThirtyEight


Maybe in your wildest dreams. That woman (Clinton) sold out our country and was not punished because the current President could be implicated.

So let’s break this down to her (Mrs. Clinton’s) actual actions pertaining to files that were considered work related. Mrs. Clinton did willfully and unlawfully initiate work related documents to be placed on her private computer. Mrs. Clinton did willfully and unlawfully allow work related documents to be removed or destroyed from her private computer. We could proceed further, however those two actions alone fulfill the requirements to be prosecuted under the law as shown in this document. Even if Mrs. Clinton is not fined under this title (18 US Code 2071 (b) or imprisoned, she is still disqualified (if found guilty) to hold any office under the United States as per the cited US Code. However, Mrs. Clinton has admitted and the FBI has stated she did in fact do these actions. You should take notice that “intent” is not mentioned in this section of the Code. Further, “ignorance of the law is no excuse” is a statement we have heard many times and by virtue of her position she either knew or should have known what she did was illegal.

Any person with the knowledge of and the authority to take legal action to implement this US Code against Mrs. H. Clinton and does not do so is guilty of dereliction of duty. If the legal action allowed and demanded by this US Code (18 US Code 2071 (b)) is not taken in a timely manner then later action could be implied as “election tampering” which would give the President reason to intervene on behalf of Mrs. Clinton. A pardon usually cannot take place unless the person is first convicted of a federal crime but the President may have other options. One of these options would be a blanket pardon which pardons crimes committed or may be committed in the future sort of like Mr. Ford did for Mr. Nixon.
Go to
Oct 27, 2016 16:31:51   #
I would like to see a Presidential run-off between all the persons who have been trashing Trump. If they are so dam good at how to attract voters then by-golly run yourself and you should be a shoe in. I suspect that Mr. Luntz tried to get Trump to hire his firm to run his election and Trump said no. I can go out and get a crowd of people to say whatever I want said. I Wrote to him and asked how to get on his "show???" but did not even get a reply or any answer to how? So how does he decide who gets to be the pick of the litter? You seem to have his life on file please enlighten us.
Go to
Oct 27, 2016 16:19:00   #
Her motto must be "there are many more old drunks than old doctors".
Go to
Oct 27, 2016 16:12:20   #
To the person that posted "Jane Chastain Explains Impact of Dems' 'Living Wage' Proposal" for all to see. This is a very nice and informative post for those who have never done any deep thinking about what is at risk this election. I am a disabled Vet from long ago and have done some research into my Social Security (fund??) or how the public has been robbed. Starting with Reagan every President and Congress has started to use the SS fund for other reasons by "borrowing" the money. The following is what I have found but the SS department will try to say the fund is protected by bonds. That is a "head in the sand" statement. The truth is Congress claims there is nothing legal that keeps them from just declaring the fund is their's to us as they want. No contract exists that they must pay back the funds stolen.

Debt Held by Federal Accounts
Debt held by federal accounts is not considered public debt - it is the amount of money that the Treasury has borrowed from itself. That may sound funny, but it means that the Treasury borrows surplus money from one trust fund and gives it to another trust fund. For example, the Treasury might borrow money from Social Security to finance current government spending in another area. At a later date, the government must pay that borrowed money back. Federal accounts currently hold 28% of the national debt.
(Note: The Federal Reserve is not counted as "debt held by federal accounts" because the Federal Reserve is considered independent of the federal government). In other words it is a private company running our country’s finances.
The U.S. debt is more than $19 trillion. Most headlines focus on how much the U.S. owes China, which is one of the largest foreign owners. Fewer people know that the Social Security Trust Fund, aka your retirement money, owns most of thenational debt. How does that work, and what does it mean?

On August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Social Security Act . It created a program to pay an income to retired workers (65 or older). The funds for Social Security came from payroll taxes, known as FICA. The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1937 to manage the income collected from these taxes so they could be redistributed as Social Security Income.
Since then, the Trust Fund has received more in income than it's paid out in benefits. That's because of America's demographics. Until recently, there were 2.9 workers for every beneficiary. More money has gone into the fund via payroll taxes than has gone out as benefits. Thanks to those decades of surplus income, the Fund had $2.7 trillion in invested assets as of 2014. (Source: 2015 Annual Report, Table 1)
It's also been because of tax hikes and adjustments to benefits. In 1977, the payroll tax rate was raised from 6.45% to 7.65%. The Trust Fund has held a surplus since then. (Source: Social Security History)
The Fund also receives interest income from its investments in "special issue" securities. The rate of return is determined by a formula enacted in 1960, and it changes each month. The average rate for each month in 2014 was 2.271%. However, the average rate for all Fund assets ($2.6 trillion) was higher, 3.358%, because the fund still holds bonds from past years when interest rates were higher.(Source: Social Security Administration, Fund FAQ)

Now for some fancy math:

In 2011, the situation worsened. The Fund's total costs were $736.1 billion, including $725 billion directly paid in benefits. However, its income from taxes and investments was only $702.4 billion. The Fund required $102.1 billion from the General Fund, making it the first year the Fund contributed to the budget deficit.

My math must be bad if I take the total costs of 736.1 and subtract my income of 702.4 that leaves me short some 33.7 which could have come from the 2.6 trillion. But our government took 102 billion from the general fund and charged it off to SS. If that is their math it is no wonder we are short money.
Go to
Oct 27, 2016 15:47:34   #
If she is worth that amount My Wife should be worth at least 100 Million for the work she does (a House wife and mother). It is remarkable that any person thinks what they do is worth $20 million for just running her or his mouth. that means she or he must be doing something other than what we see or our money is in worse shape than I can imagine. when I was in Vietnam getting shot at for the country (right or wrong doesn't matter) I was not making $30 thousand a year so what makes her worth that amount?
Go to
Oct 23, 2016 19:59:27   #
The above items show directly that Clinton, at a minimum, is guilty of violating the following law. I challenge Fox news to put this law to the test and still not demand something be done.

This law, 18 US Code 2071 (b), is the law Mrs. H. Clinton violated while holding office as the United States Secretary of State. Here is the reading of the appropriate code section:

(b)
“Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

The whole paragraph has compound sentences: "The structure of a compound sentence sends certain messages to readers, no matter how you fill in the blanks. First, it tells readers that the sentence contains two relatively important ideas, each one deserving its own independent clause. Second, it tells readers that these two ideas are approximately equal in importance, since they are balanced as a pair. And third, it alerts readers to the relationship between the two ideas, depending on the connector. For example, and suggests that the two ideas are being added together, but indicates that they are being contrasted, and or tells us that they are alternatives. A semicolon suggests balance between two similar or sharply contrasting statements."

By following the rules of punctuation we can easily and accurately settle on the things she willfully did.

First Mrs. Clinton did have custody of records, documents or other things (electronic documents). Next she did willfully and unlawfully conceal or destroy the same.
So let’s break this down to her (Mrs. Clinton’s) actual actions pertaining to files that were considered work related. Mrs. Clinton did willfully and unlawfully initiate work related documents to be placed on her private computer. Mrs. Clinton did willfully and unlawfully allow work related documents to be removed or destroyed from her private computer. We could proceed further, however those two actions alone fulfill the requirements to be prosecuted under the law as shown in this document. Even if Mrs. Clinton is not fined under this title (18 US Code 2071 (b) or imprisoned, she is still disqualified (if found guilty) to hold any office under the United States as per the cited US Code. However, Mrs. Clinton has admitted and the FBI has stated she did in fact do these actions. You should take notice that “intent” is not mentioned in this section of the Code.

Any person with the knowledge of and the authority to take legal action to implement this US Code against Mrs. H. Clinton and does not do so is guilty of dereliction of duty. If the legal action allowed and demanded by this US Code (18 US Code 2071 (b)) is not taken in a timely manner then later action could be implied as “election tampering” which would give the President reason to intervene on behalf of Mrs. Clinton. A pardon usually cannot take place unless the person is first convicted of a federal crime but the President may have other options. One of these options would be a blanket pardon which pardons crimes committed or may be committed in the future sort of like Mr. Ford did for Mr. Nixon.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.