^ Please elaborate, Harry.
Here's an amusing side issue for Trump. A group of people are opposing Trump Hotels having a liquor license.
"Five local religious leaders and two retired judges are challenging the liquor license Trump holds for his hotel in the District of Columbia, arguing that he doesn’t have the “good character” required by law to hold such a license.
By law, if the “true and actual owner of the establishment” serving alcohol is not “of good character,” the liquor license can be suspended or revoked by the local Alcoholic Beverage Control Board."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ce=politics_fb
That's twice it's gone whooshing over your head. Let it die.
Meanwhile, back in Trump land:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-...ord-1536397753China’s Trade Surplus With U.S. Hits New Record
U.S.-China trade gap widens to $31.05 billion
Sept. 8, 2018 5:09 a.m. ET
BEIJING—China’s trade surplus with the U.S. hit another record monthly high in August as the world’s second-largest economy faced the threat of more tariffs from the Trump administration.
Unbelievable - and hypocritical - whilst in almost every EU country you can buy and drink "liquer" at every pub or shop.
(However, not so surprising about a country where the beer consumed in the public park is allowed only when wrapped in a paper bag, otherwise a big problem with the law...)
It's very obvious that my point has gone whooshing over your head, but I understand your reticence to admit it, so yeah, we'll let it die. Let you save face and all.
Note I said "reticence" and not "inability". My magnanimity knows no bounds
Oh, how sorry I am. And thank you, you gave me 2 choices: Yes, I am a non-native speaker.
Are you a native?
Looking on WordWeb for meaning of native:
1. A person born in a particular place or country
"he is a native of Brazil"
2. An indigenous person who was born in a particular place
"the art of the natives of the northwest coast"
3. Indigenous plants and animals
What's your choice?
And perhaps lots of other folks. Bad idea to open that can of worms again.
Voting rights and the Supreme Court: The impossible ?literacy? test Louisiana used to give black voters.
^not a problem....trump's gonna ban voting anyway
....lol
What you are proposing is a two class society,one that rules and one that sits back and says yes sir master. Does this remind you of the early days in America,only this time not based on race but IQ. I find that quite strange coming from an all inclusive progressive type such as you.
Why do you right wing dim bulbs have to lie all the time?
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.htmlMyth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program The idea here is basically correct.
However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.
The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget.
But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
Ok so I stated it incorrectly but the idea is the same,the trust fund was incorporated into a unified budget meaning the government can dip into at anytime they wish.State it however you want but to take away from the fact the government has been pilfering from social security since 1969 is disingenuous. Why you are digging into the internet maybe you should look up how much the government owes social security.
I did did the work for you.
- Edit
- Watch this page
- Read in another language
Social Security Trust Fund
The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund (collectively, the Social Security Trust Fund or Trust Funds) are trust funds that provide for payment of Social Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; OASDI) benefits administered by the United States Social Security Administration.[1][2][3]
The Social Security Administration collects payroll taxes and uses the money collected to pay Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance benefits by way of trust funds. When the program runs a surplus, the excess funds increase the value of the Trust Fund. At the end of 2014, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.79 trillion, up $25 billion from 2013.[4] The Trust Fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government. These securities earn a market rate of interest.[5]
Excess funds are used by the government for non-Social Security purposes, creating the obligations to the Social Security Administration and thus program recipients. However, Congress could cut these obligations by altering the law. Trust Fund obligations are considered "intra-governmental" debt, a component of the "public" or "national" debt. As of June 2015, the intragovernmental debt was $5.1 trillion of the $18.2 trillion national debt.[6]
According to the Social Security Trustees, who oversee the program and report on its financial condition, program costs are expected to exceed non-interest income from 2010 onward. However, due to interest (earned at a 3.6% rate in 2014) the program will run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2019. Under current law, the securities in the Trust Fund represent a legal obligation the government must honor when program revenues are no longer sufficient to fully fund benefit payments. However, when the Trust Fund is used to cover program deficits in a given year, the Trust Fund balance is reduced. By 2034, the Trust Fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are projected to only cover approximately 79% of program obligations.[7]
There have been various proposals to address this shortfall, including reducing government expenditures, such as by raising the retirement age; tax increases; and borrowing.
Contents
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
You quoted wikipedia you blathering idiot. You have only proved your utter stupidity and the fact that you are wrong. It is the Republicans who are hell bent on destroying social security and medicare/medicaid not the Democrats who want to expand both programs so stop the lies. You are just once again making a fool of yourself.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)