Paul says everything is good, no need to worry LOL

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

I counter with:

tenor.gif
 
I have always maintained that our debt was meaningless since we never had any intention of paying any of it off.
 
Fine. Don't pay it off. But, who is collecting interest on "money" they digitally printed out of thin air?
 
Krugman has been wrong on most issues over the last 10 years.
 
CiscoKid said:
I have always maintained that our debt was meaningless since we never had any intention of paying any of it off.
Click to expand...
The principle gets paid back. Problem is, the gov incurs new debt in order to pay it.
 
We've reached the end of the Ponzi pyramid.

It is what happens EVERY...SINGLE...TIME fiat money is adopted.

The "debt" is a fiction. It's the way the gubbermint obscures its money-printing. It will not be paid off; and those banksters who through their non-federal Federal Reserve, collected their 30 pieces of silver for covering...they, too, will be left naked.

Most of them have no other skills, meaning no skills at all. When we revert to some sort of barbaric tyranny...or even, just to CBDCs...they will be left with nothing. Except maybe a penthouse suite, with overdue mortgage payments...and an inner voice, telling them to jump out the window.
 
personally i think the Dems will evoke the 14th amendment and take the debt ceiling out of congress's hands while argueably and legally suspect this is a "crisis" and why let it go to waste...another power grab .....and basicly un-fettered spending ....and dollar destruction .........but we will see pretty soon wont we..... just my conspiracy brain working overtime
 
jrog100 said:
The debt is based in monoply money. why worry about paying it off?
Click to expand...
If you are gonna want your SS monies that are owed to you, the debt needs to be paid off. SS trust fund is 100% "funded" with treasury debt. If it's not paid back, no one who is owed will get their money back.

Haven't you heard? The SS trust fund will be depleted in 10 years, at most. That means that the gov must pay those notes off over the next 10 years. Otherwise SS will not have the money to pay what has been promised to the People.
 
And that, IMHO, is why the Deep State and Globalist cadre are going to push the issue.

Your antiSocial inSecurity money is GONE. DEAL with it. Whether you like it or not, it's GONE.

Accepting it, and moving forward to protect your RIGHTS AND LIBERTY ("National Divorce" and other removals of Imperial Washington influence) is key to survival.

This is how war and destructive social and government trends RUN. All involved lose some. Some lose all, including their lives.

AntiSocial inSecurity was a Ponzi hustle, a cheap promise by liars to the gullible. If it was really a great idea, they wouldn't have had to mandate participation in it.
 
Casey Jones said:
Are you serious? Have you tried to tell your employer, you no longer want FICA withholdings from your pay?
Click to expand...
I'm just tellin' ya that there is no actual mandate in the law. Ie: the Social Security Act. Participation is 100% voluntary.

The problem today, and for many years now, is that virtually everyone has volunteered to participate in it. Which makes it hard for anyone not wanting to.

Edited to add: acceptance and use of the # constitutes ones voluntary participation.
To have participation mandated by law would be unConstitutional.
 

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
 
Joe King said:
I'm just tellin' ya that there is no actual mandate in the law. Ie: the Social Security Act. Participation is 100% voluntary.

The problem today, and for many years now, is that virtually everyone has volunteered to participate in it. Which makes it hard for anyone not wanting to.

Edited to add: acceptance and use of the # constitutes ones voluntary participation.
To have participation mandated by law would be unConstitutional.
Click to expand...
It's not voluntary. IT IS THE LAW.

You HAVE NO CHOICE, as employer or employee, to withhold/have withheld, and to make employers' payments to FICA on behalf of employees.

There is no opting out.

The only exceptions are PUBLIC EMPLOYEES - and only if they're covered by a separate pension plan. And railroad workers, who have to pay a BIGGER withholding to Railroad Retirement.
 
Casey Jones said:
It's not voluntary. IT IS THE LAW.
Click to expand...
Nope. There is NO law requiring an American citizen to obtain and use a SSN.

If there were, you would not have to apply for one. It would be issued to you without you having to ask for one. Ie: submit an SS-5 asking the gov to give you one. If you don't ask, you can't get one.

Now there are some regulations requiring one if one wants to receive federal benefits,
.....but that didn't even start until 1972.

If one can live without the "benefit" (ie: strings of control) of Uncle Sam, there is no requirement to obtain one.

Now granted, they would like you to THINK there is a blanket requirement. That by merely being an American citizen, that it somehow requires one to obtain and use a #.
If there were, it would be unConstitutional.


Even for people whose parents got them one at birth, it only becomes legally binding once the child accepts AND uses the nunber upon reaching age of consent. Ie: the child has choice.
 
Withholding FICA is mandatory.

Employers' recording and verifying SSNs is mandatory.

Employing someone without a SSN is illegal.

Look, this is a stupid argument. For DECADES conservatives have been trying to get an opt-out, an alternative private retirement fund or at least private management of money in the SS "account." The move hasn't gone anywhere, and we know why.

Because DemocRats love OPM.
 
Casey Jones said:
Withholding FICA is mandatory.

Employers' recording and verifying SSNs is mandatory.
Click to expand...
It is mandatory for employers to ASK employees for a #, but no requirement that they actually be given one.



Casey Jones said:
Employing someone without a SSN is illega
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it's not. If it were, then there would be no need for a "form P-1 affidavit" from those without one. *


Casey Jones said:
Look, this is a stupid argument.
Click to expand...
Only for you, perhaps.



* I realize that you do not know what a form P-1 affidavit is. It's from the irs.

Form P-1 PDF Details
This affidavit should state that the payor has made a request for the payee's identifying number, and the payee has not provided it. By submitting this affidavit, the payor demonstrates that the failure to provide the required identifying number is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.


Without a P-1, there is a $50 fine on the payor for not providing a payees number.
....but with a P-1, the fine is waived.

Edited to add: if what you are saying were true, it would be impossible to be a payee without a #, yet there is a form that allows for it.
Why would there be a form allowing for something that is supposedly prohibitted?


https://www.pdffiller.com/jsfiller-...nge-v2=false#978230fe19d748cfb34030d053b469a2
 
Last edited:
Okay, whatever.

Try it sometime.

It'll go like declaring yourself to be a "Sovereign Citizen" and not filing a tax return, will go.
 
Joe King said:
It is mandatory for employers to ASK employees for a #, but no requirement that they actually be given one.




Sorry, but it's not. If it were, then there would be no need for a "form P-1 affidavit" from those without one. *



Only for you, perhaps.



* I realize that you do not know what a form P-1 affidavit is. It's from the irs.

Form P-1 PDF Details
This affidavit should state that the payor has made a request for the payee's identifying number, and the payee has not provided it. By submitting this affidavit, the payor demonstrates that the failure to provide the required identifying number is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.


Without a P-1, there is a $50 fine on the payor for not providing a payees number.
....but with a P-1, the fine is waived.

Edited to add: if what you are saying were true, it would be impossible to be a payee without a #, yet there is a form that allows for it.
Why would there be a form allowing for something that is supposedly prohibitted?


https://www.pdffiller.com/jsfiller-...nge-v2=false#978230fe19d748cfb34030d053b469a2
Click to expand...
As a employer and employee I looked into opting out of SS about 20yrs ago (i could have turned that 15% into a lot into todays $).....at that time it was possible ...seems like it required some specific op out form be filed etc......I was pretty vested in at that point and decided not to opt out as I was close to early retirement....I am on a personal mission to recoup those $ and started collecting SS funds this january...it does get me excited they want to collect taxes on those payments
 
Ttazzman said:
As a employer and employee I looked into opting out of SS about 20yrs ago (i could have turned that 15% into a lot into todays $).....at that time it was possible
Click to expand...

If it was then, it still is, as nothing substantial has changed between then and now regarding SS#'s.

Ttazzman said:
.it does get me excited they want to collect taxes on those payments
Click to expand...
That money already had taxes paid on it, yes?


Casey Jones said:
Okay, whatever.
Click to expand...
So no idea why such a form that allows for a payor to not have to report a payees SS# is a thing, huh?

If it were a blanket requirement, the irs would make no mention of such a thing.


Casey Jones said:
Try it sometime.
Click to expand...
I never said it'd be easy. Especially not with 99.9% of the public having been brainwashed into thinking that there is a mandatory requirement for any/all US persons to have one.

You have to remember that we are 4 generations into the program. It's engrained in the public psyche that it is mandated by law that everyone have one. You are an example of that, but your knowledge of the issue is 100% based upon what someone else merely told you. Same as someone told them.



Casey Jones said:
It'll go like declaring yourself to be a "Sovereign Citizen" and not filing a tax return, will go.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the sovereign citizen thing, as that term is an oxymoron.
.....but without an SS#, you can't file a tax return. Accepting and using one is what creates the liability for having to file a return to begin with.

Getting a # is voluntary, but once ya do the strings associated with it come into play.

It's the nugget of truth as to why Harry Reid can say in this interview that income taxes are voluntary, and not be called a liar. (it's almost though the two are speaking entirely different languages)
....he's just not being entirely forthcoming as to why he says what he does. His words are crafted v e r y carefully.





I'm just explaining how the mechanism of the system works. Try not to hate the messenger.
 
Joe King said:
So no idea why such a form that allows for a payor to not have to report a payees SS# is a thing, huh?

If it were a blanket requirement, the irs would make no mention of such a thing.
Click to expand...
What?

I have no idea what that means.

I'm not going to argue about what IS law/regulations. The United States Code fills whole walls of libraries; but I guaran-damn-tee ya, if there was a practical, legal way to opt out, PEOPLE WOULD DO IT.

They do not. 1099 employees pay the FULL FREIGHT of FICA, instead of half (the other half paid by employers). Would they do that if not required by law? Is everyone deluded except yourself?

I'm not going to participate in another Flat Earth discussion.

/word
 
Casey Jones said:
What?

I have no idea what that means.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't. I wouldn't expect you to. I already knew that based on your previous responses.

In a nutshel, the irs accepts a P-1 from employers for employees who do not have a SS#.



My question to you is, why would such a form even exist if all Americans are required by law to have a number?
....or even if just all employees were required to have a number.

It would make no sense for them to do that, but yet they do.

Anything you want to do with the government, there's a form for it.


Casey Jones said:
I'm not going to argue about what IS law/regulations.
Click to expand...
That's good, because I'm not arguing either. I'm merely explaining the mechanism for how the system actually works.
....as opposed to popular belief as to how it works.


Casey Jones said:
The United States Code fills whole walls of libraries; but I guaran-damn-tee ya, if there was a practical, legal way to opt out, PEOPLE WOULD DO IT.
Click to expand...
Yep, sure does and I've read a lot more of it than most people have.

Edited to add: most people wouldn't do it. Why? Because most people like their gov benefits.
.....and it takes an actual desire to know/learn how not to, before one could intelligently decide if that's even what they want to do. How many young people have time for that before they start working? Not too damn many.
Most people want the easiest way possible to do anything, and the gov is more than happy to make it as easy as possible to jump through its hoops.

Look around you at the people you mostly see. Do they seem as though they take the hard, yet principled path? Or the easiest one possible?


Casey Jones said:
They do not. 1099 employees pay the FULL FREIGHT of FICA, instead of half (the other half paid by employers). Would they do that if not required by law? Is everyone deluded except yourself?
Click to expand...
Yep. They sure do. Anyone having volunteered to accept and use the number while being "self employed" would have to.

If they did not hold up their end of the agreement, the gov will get 'em. That's a guarantee. The gov hates it when people sign up to pay, but then don't. It's how ya end up in a place called "tax court". Which by the way is not a real court. It's an Article 2 administrative "court". It's a "court" in name only, run by an executive agency.
I say, "in name only", because imho the only real courts are Article 3 courts.



Casey Jones said:
I'm not going to participate in another Flat Earth discussion.

/word
Click to expand...
That's not what this is.


Casey Jones said:
Hairy Weed was a lying POS.
Click to expand...
He may be that, but in that vid he was being what I would call, evasively honest. Like I said, he chose his words very carefully in his responses. He's being technically correct while also not saying it in such a way as to be easily understood by those with no clear understanding of the law.


As I said, it's as though he and Jan are speaking completely different languages while simultaneously speaking English. It's what makes the video so funny.


Also, I'm not advocating for one approach or the other. I'm just attempting to explain how it actually works.
....but I honestly believe that had it been explained clearly and concisely how it (SS) works and the full implications of it, that the People would have mostly rejected it. It was sold to them as though it is insurance, but in reality was just another tax and a way to get the People to exchange some of their Rights for gov granted privileges.

Over the course of many years I've dug deep into the whys and how fors (so to speak) of how the system works, and I'm merely sharing what I've learned. If you think I am arguing with you, you are mistaken. I have no desire to argue with you. You used to drive trains and I think that's pretty darn cool. I love trains and if the price to drive one for just one day was my left nut, I'd have to at least consider the offer. Lol
 
Last edited:
Instead of being cute, with cryptic references, why don't you show me, STRAIGHT OUT of the United States Code or CFR, the procedures for opting out of FICA.

Why don't you show me how an employee can refuse to provide a social-security number and be put on a payroll.

Why don't you show me where a person can work for wages, and either file taxes without a SSN or not file, legally.

YOU CANNOT.

You don't file, you go to prison for non-payment.

This is an asinine discussion. The only worthwhile thing to glean out of this, is how needlessly convoluted and complex are Federal regulations and laws.
 
Show me ONE case, court ruling or example, where your INTERPRETATION of this spider-web of laws has been accepted as valid.

One thing that troubles and annoys me, is this belief in Magic Words. Like flashing a pocket Constitution at a cop when being asked to provide identity or a driver's license. Magic Words only work when the judge and prosecutor are in on the game.

If a court rejects your one-off INTERPRETATION of this complex web of regulations, you're done. And with that, you go to gaol a LONG time...ask Peter Schiff about his father, who died in Federal prison (of treatable cancer) because, he, too, tried Magic Words to avoid tax payments.

Like it or not, Federal courts interpret and apply laws. Gun "control" laws are BLATANTLY unconstitutional, but for a century we've had them applied and hundreds of thousands of people imprisoned for violating them. So much for the sanctity of words, not even Magic Words but straight English...that the Federal leviathan rejects.
 
Casey Jones said:
Instead of being cute, with cryptic references, why don't you show me, STRAIGHT OUT of the United States Code or CFR, the procedures for opting out of FICA
Click to expand...
Did I say opt out, or did I say don't volunteer to begin with?




Casey Jones said:
Why don't you show me how an employee can refuse to provide a social-security number and be put on a payroll.
Click to expand...
It depends on how badly a company wants to hire you.

At this point, 85 years into it, prolly no company is going to want to do things differently for one worker with no special skills.
Especially if they can just hire the next guy on the applicant list to get the same work done.
....but seeing as you asked, there is this from the Texas Workforce Commission on verification of SS#'s.

Notice that it is a .gov website.


"Every once in a while, you may encounter a would-be employee who, for one reason or another, not only does not have a social security card, but refuses to show you one, or else claims not to have a social security number at all.

"The IRS actually provides a procedure for employers and employees to use if such a situation occurs and the employer still wishes to hire the individual; the procedure is described in detail on its Web site at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/int...iling-forms-w-2-and-1042-s-without-payee-tins("Filing Forms W-2 and 1042-S Without Payee TIN's"), and involves the use of an affidavit."

That'd be the form P-1 affidavit I mentionned.

TWC also goes on to advise companies not choosing to hire someone without a SS# to not tell them the reason why, so as to avoid "legal action" for their decision.

"In the case of employees who refuse outright to furnish a social security number, and the employer decides not to hire the employee, it would be well-advised to take advantage of its right not to explain why an applicant is not being hired. To explain would only invite legal action.

Casey, why would admitting to not wanting to hire based on an applicant not having a number, open a company to a lawsuit?

If there were a blanket requirement that all applicants must have a SS# in order to be hired, such a case brought would be declared as frivolous by the court, and dismissed.
Ie: there would be no danger to the company. Yet the TWC.gov advises that there could be? Why would they say such a thing if it weren't true?

If things were truly as you think, there would be no possibility of being sued for refusing to hire someone lacking the legal requirements for being hired.



Casey Jones said:
Why don't you show me where a person can work for wages, and either file taxes without a SSN or not file, legally
Click to expand...
if you don't have a SS#, why would you want to file an income tax return? You have to have a number to do that.


Casey Jones said:
You don't file, you go to prison for non-payment.
Click to expand...
Yes, but only if you already had a liability requiring you to file, and you did not.
....but if you already took action to create a liability, it would in fact be a crime to not file a return relative to that previously existing liability.

Ie: if you actually owe the tax, yes it would be a mistake not to file. Everyone should pay whatever it is they are liable for.




Casey Jones said:
This is an asinine discussion. The only worthwhile thing to glean out of this, is how needlessly convoluted and complex are Federal regulations and laws.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, they are very much so that. The complexity of the regs is what keeps people on the easy path of volunteering to put what amounts to a gov ring in their noses in order to be led along by.


Casey Jones said:
Show me ONE case, court ruling or example, where your INTERPRETATION of this spider-web of laws has been accepted as valid.
Click to expand...
If ya do it right, you'll never see a court.


Casey Jones said:
One thing that troubles and annoys me, is this belief in Magic Words.
Click to expand...
When did I ever say it comes down to that?

It's fact that the form P-1 is real. The irs accepts them.

Can you have a #, but then lie about it and file the affidavit anyways and expect to have nothing happen to you? No. A person would be stupid to do that.


Look Casey, I am not saying that any of this is easy, or should even be attempted by those not fully versed in how it all works.

All I am saying is that there is obviously not a blanket requirement for all Americans to have SS#.

That it is a voluntary gov program. More specifically, it is a tax that one volunteers to pay.
Ie: no mandate exists requiring those who do not want gov benefits, to get one.
 
I can't thank you for that; it phizzes me off. But there's a lesson to be learned.

"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

I can't fault the defendants who thought they were just at a a protest rally. None of us knew how lawless Congress and the fake-kourts had become. But ONCE IN THERE...the time to play the Magic-Words game, is in an appeals court, far removed from the mental-necropsy of the DC courts.

Which SHOULD NOT EVEN BE. Those should be COUNTY courts in Virginia or Maryland. For EXACTLY THIS REASON.
 
* bump *

Krugman being an idiot again.



Paul Krugman was widely trolled on Thursday for saying that if you just ignore food, energy, housing, and used cars — unavoidable costs for many Americans — then the period of surging prices has passed.
...
The Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist faced immediate backlash to his heavily adjusted yardstick of price growth. His X post was still at the top of the popular Wall Street Bets subreddit on Friday morning.

"A totally ridiculous measure," Jim Bianco, president and macro strategist of Bianco Research, said about Krugman's chart in an X post. "It excludes 55% of the index."
...
Click to expand...

www.businessinsider.com

Nobel economist Paul Krugman gets trolled for saying inflation is over if you just exclude most of what people buy

Paul Krugman faced ridicule over a chart showing inflation has fallen below 2% if basics like food, energy, housing, and used-car prices are excluded.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

h/t: https://mishtalk.com/economics/krugman-says-we-won-the-war-on-inflation-at-very-little-cost/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom