All working Americans now pay 2% MORE TAXES

It's amazing how Barleybrains does that. He says and when you contest it, ignores what he'd said.

that said, I wonder why people are so surprised when they're asked to pay for all the free shit they demand...

I have already debunked that lie three times. Why do you keep repeating it? Originally Posted by WTF

Because he hasn't thought of a better one yet. Originally Posted by Doove

Wrong-O, it's because Faux Noise, Rush and the whang-dang rightie bloggers haven't provided the Teawipe Parrotriots with any new material. So, the janitors and auto parts supply store counter hands (Cornyhole and COsFb) can't gen up anything while having coffee, grease'n'grits at Waffle House.

You're getting very boring WTF. You want to repeat a lie and you think that is what? proof? Of course what are you lying about is the question. That it robbed Social Security on the back end or that I said it earlier. You don't make that clear in your falsehood.

I never agreed with it as it robbed your Social Security on the back end. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Not true. The shortfall on the SS tax receipts was made up from general revenue. The deficit was applied to the general revenue account. The SS trust fund now holds additional bonds beyond those it would have held backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government exactly equal to the value of the shortfall.

Not true. ....The SS trust fund now holds additional bonds beyond those it would have held backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government exactly equal to the value of the shortfall. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

The paper I have in my wallet is "backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government" ... the contributions I made were "backed" by my labor at the time, which was worth more than the paper in my wallet, .... and the government borrowed my trust funds and replaced my "labor-dollars" with more paper that is "backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government" ... and purchased by someone else who is earning interest on the bonds "backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government" ...

only a banker on Sunday morning looking at the "announcements" of the "finanical worth" of his bank would believe that ..... because he believes that about his bank ...

"I work at a 50 billion dollar bank" ... to his country club buddies.

If the Government had to hand back all the contributions made by employees and the self-employed into the SS "fund" tomorrow ... the Government couldn't do it .... and if his "bank" had to hand back all the depositors' money .. it couldn't do it either!

It's ON PAPER.

The toilet paper with which I wipe my ass is worth more!

Then I'll trade you the toilet paper I wipe my ass with for an assignment of your SS benefits. Will you agree to that?

LexusBlubber, how much pussy have you bought with a roll of Charmin?

Thought so.

You're such a blithering idiot - all bluster and no muster.

You're getting very boring WTF. You want to repeat a lie and you think that is what? proof? Of course what are you lying about is the question. That it robbed Social Security on the back end or that I said it earlier. You don't make that clear in your falsehood. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It did not rob SS on the back end. You have now said that it has three times, maybe four. How fucking dense are you? You have repeated the lie 2 or 4 times. How much clearer do you need me to explain this to you?

http://taxes.about.com/od/payroll/a/...g-For-2011.htm
What Happens to the "Missing" Social Security Funds?

To prevent Social Security from losing tax revenue, Congress mandated that revenues be transferred from the general fund to the Social Security trust funds to make up for the tax reduction. This is provided for in section 601 of the Tax Relief Act, which reads in part, "There are hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the application of subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted."

Barleycorn, why don't you just give it up?

TexTushHog and WTF are quite correct. That's not even remotely arguable.

Most of your posts include either insults or clueless statements. (Or both.)

Have you ever thought about reading and learning before popping off, or is that too much to ask?

It did not rob SS on the back end. You have now said that it has three times, maybe four. How fucking dense are you? You have repeated the lie 2 or 4 times. How much clearer do you need me to explain this to you?

http://taxes.about.com/od/payroll/a/...g-For-2011.htm
What Happens to the "Missing" Social Security Funds?

To prevent Social Security from losing tax revenue, Congress mandated that revenues be transferred from the general fund to the Social Security trust funds to make up for the tax reduction. This is provided for in section 601 of the Tax Relief Act, which reads in part, "There are hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the application of subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted." Originally Posted by WTF

It is all a big shell game, we still have to pay the interest on the money from the general fund. We wound up getting fucked worse than if they never did it in the first place. Fucking politicians, they all suck moose cock..

Barleycorn, why don't you just give it up?

TexTushHog and WTF are quite correct. That's not even remotely arguable.

Most of your posts include either insults or clueless statements. (Or both.)

Have you ever thought about reading and learning before popping off, or is that too much to ask? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

What do you expect from a school custodian, who tries to pass himself off as a teacher, errrr Professor?

This is funny as Hell!! You typical low-information voters

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...tax-increases/

Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.
.............

The Twittersphere was even funnier.
“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”

“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?

This is funny as Hell!! You typical low-information voters

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...tax-increases/ Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Given a choice between the two I would rather be a "typical low-information voter" than a typical no-information voter like the Far Right Wing-Nut Tea Baggers!

Just sayin'

Uh-huh, OK

Uh-huh, OK Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

I thought you would agree!