Religions > Atheism > Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
15 Jan 2005 10:46:44 AM |
| Object: |
Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
youngsters and then steal their savings away for others via the so-called
"social security program?" The program would have been struck down as
unconstitutional but for the guile of one of America's worst presidents,
the socialist FDR, and a craven Supreme Court justice.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down FDR's
socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he cynically proposed a
court packing scheme to seize control of the Supreme Court. Under that
threat, Justice Owen Roberts turned his back on liberty and changed the
voting pattern of the court to submit to FDR's bidding. It was "the switch
in time that socialized nine."
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement trust fund" because
our so-called "contributions" are actually additional income taxes that
are deposited in the federal government's general fund, and Social
Security is nothing but a federal welfare scheme disguised as a retirement
program.
Since the federal government was never granted the constitutional
authority to force the American people to participate or contribute to a
retirement program, the only way Congress could extract the money was
through taxation.
Social Security is simply a covert way to tax the American people. Since
Social Security is a tax scheme disguised as a retirement program,
Congress can structure the rates so the federal government collects more
money in taxes than it pays out in benefits without enraging the people.
Congress can then pat itself on the back and announce to the nation that
there is a Social Security surplus for the year. This projects the
illusion that Congress is fiscally responsible and doing a wonderful job
protecting the retirement of seniors.
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated, it is a
welfare scheme that steals from the neediest, and it has been a path to a
Soviet style welfare state.
.
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
15 Jan 2005 12:11:15 PM |
|
|
"ElaineJ" <cornumella2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1105811907.814837.107890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Gactimus wrote:
-snip-
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement
trust fund" because our so-called "contributions" are
actually additional income taxes that are deposited in
the federal government's general fund, and Social Security
is nothing but a federal welfare scheme disguised as a
retirement program.
And BushWar2 is a corporate welfare scheme thinly disguised as
defense of the U.S. If labels bother you so much, then let's
UN-disguise it. Call it whatever you want, as long as you DON'T
pretend that 1) the money doesn't exist, 2) isn't owed to us, and 3)
the richest 5% of Americans are entitled to confiscate OUR money from a
system they never paid into.
You are deceived. There is no retirement trust fund. The Court stated:
"The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like
internal-revenue taxes generally, AND ARE NOT EARMARKED IN ANY WAY."
Neither of the taxes are set aside to pay Social Security benefits.
Both are general fund income taxes, which are used to pay the everyday
expenditures of the federal government.
If Congress decided to abolish Social Security, the American people would
not have any legal claim for promised benefits.
Social Security is simply a covert way to tax the American >people.
-snip-
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever
perpetrated,
And the gop's darlin' boy Ronnie was right there pretending to be
president when Greenspan ratcheted up our taxes to *guarantee* the
solvency of Social Security. Guess what? That confiscatory rise in
taxes worked. Social Security is STILL solvent, which is why Wall St.
wants to grab our money now before the spineless bunch of grrdy wimps
in Congress arranges for other corporate entities grab it.
it is a welfare scheme that steals from the neediest,
Sure. Lessee... 'neediest', like old people who've paid into the
system for 40 years, you mean? The people who are now getting some of
our confiscated money back? Those 'neediest'?
NYT SUNDAY: -- Over the objections of many of its own employees, the
Social Security Administration is gearing up for a major effort to
publicize the financial problems of Social Security and to persuade the
public that private accounts are needed as part of any solution...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lazarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
20 Jan 2005 11:20:02 AM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote...
[--a bunch of lies about Social Security--]
Hey *****-face! Have you done the math? Bush's "reforms" involve adding $2
trillion in new debt and cutting benefits in half. They are even thinking
of calculating lower benefits for women, because they live longer.
So let's say that Bush's "reforms" go through, and you get to divert some of
your FICA contribution into a private investment account.
Where's the $2 trillion coming from?
What are you going to do when you lose all your money?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
20 Jan 2005 12:04:20 PM |
|
|
"Lazarus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in
news:1106241511.f8fbacdb0a3e69bad1b2b436b1f1ba6b@teranews:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote...
[--a bunch of lies about Social Security--]
Hey *****-face! Have you done the math? Bush's "reforms" involve adding
$2 trillion in new debt and cutting benefits in half. They are even
thinking of calculating lower benefits for women, because they live
longer.
So let's say that Bush's "reforms" go through, and you get to divert
some of your FICA contribution into a private investment account.
Where's the $2 trillion coming from?
What are you going to do when you lose all your money?
If we get rid on Social Security I won't have to worry about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
21 Jan 2005 11:28:12 AM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"Lazarus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in
news:1106241511.f8fbacdb0a3e69bad1b2b436b1f1ba6b@teranews:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote...
[--a bunch of lies about Social Security--]
Hey *****-face! Have you done the math? Bush's "reforms" involve adding
$2 trillion in new debt and cutting benefits in half. They are even
thinking of calculating lower benefits for women, because they live
longer.
So let's say that Bush's "reforms" go through, and you get to divert
some of your FICA contribution into a private investment account.
Where's the $2 trillion coming from?
What are you going to do when you lose all your money?
If we get rid on Social Security I won't have to worry about it.
.... because after you lose all your money you don't have to worry
about losing it any more.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
15 Jan 2005 03:06:58 PM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
youngsters and then steal their savings away for others via the so-called
"social security program?"
What an idiot you are.
Don't discuss things you don't understand.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T C" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
15 Jan 2005 04:40:32 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote in message: news:<UNbGd.138435$Uf.102917@twister.nyroc.rr.com>
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated, it is a
welfare scheme that steals from the neediest, and it has been a path to a
Soviet style welfare state.
More proof that the USA is a stinking sewer full of people like you, people who
should have been aborted and flushed down the crapper. Who would want to live
in the USA except for illegal Mexicans, criminals and right wing religious
fanatics who rape children when they're not trying to steal your money?
Anyone over 16 years old in the USA should be drowned in the ocean and left to
rot, retiring in a crime infested ***** hole like the USA would be like burning
in Hell.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Lichtenstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to totaldismantlement |
15 Jan 2005 08:07:05 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
youngsters and then steal their savings away for others via the so-called
"social security program?" The program would have been struck down as
unconstitutional but for the guile of one of America's worst presidents,
the socialist FDR, and a craven Supreme Court justice.
Would have, could have, should have. Perhaps. But it wasn't because it
ISN'T Sour grapes don't work well.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down FDR's
socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he cynically proposed a
court packing scheme to seize control of the Supreme Court. Under that
threat, Justice Owen Roberts turned his back on liberty and changed the
voting pattern of the court to submit to FDR's bidding. It was "the switch
in time that socialized nine."
Regardless, it's still the law of the land. I'm afraid that you're just
going to have to deal with it.
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement trust fund" because
our so-called "contributions" are actually additional income taxes that
are deposited in the federal government's general fund, and Social
Security is nothing but a federal welfare scheme disguised as a retirement
program.
If you knew anything about how retirement plans function, you would know and
understand that Social Security is indeed a retirement program. it pays
benefits annuity style, just like every other retirement program. Welfare
program's don't do that. As far as your erroneous assertion, FICA taxes are
used to fund FICA benefits. Any surplus money the Government takes for
whatever, like paying for the unnecessary war in Iraq are replaced with
promissory notes drawn on the Treasury, which it will most definitely make
good on. Thus ALL moneys collected through FICA taxes are used to pay for
benefits through that fund.
Since the federal government was never granted the constitutional
authority to force the American people to participate or contribute to a
retirement program, the only way Congress could extract the money was
through taxation.
It was never denied that ability either.
Social Security is simply a covert way to tax the American people. Since
Social Security is a tax scheme disguised as a retirement program,
Congress can structure the rates so the federal government collects more
money in taxes than it pays out in benefits without enraging the people.
Actually Social Security was always structured to fund its benefits from
current receipts. Now, if you want to argue that this was both actuarially
and fiscally unsound, I won't disagree with you, because it was and is. In
point of fact, that is precisely the problem that it faces now. Fortunately,
it can be fixed somewhat easily, however, i don't feel that you are up to
looking at it objectively. i get the distinct impression that you want to
stand on your soapbox and rant your hatred to the world. That is hardly a
way to present an objective solution. Smacks more of demagoguery.
Congress can then pat itself on the back and announce to the nation that
there is a Social Security surplus for the year. This projects the
illusion that Congress is fiscally responsible and doing a wonderful job
protecting the retirement of seniors.
Actually, I think your significant misunderstanding, coupled with your hatred
is the far worse problem.
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated, it is a
welfare scheme that steals from the neediest, and it has been a path to a
Soviet style welfare state.
Actually, no. If you knew anything about how Social Security works, you
would know and understand that its formulas actually skew benefits towards
the lower earnings.
Alan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
16 Jan 2005 08:37:14 AM |
|
|
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in news:41E9CC4A.54B62B77@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
youngsters and then steal their savings away for others via the
so-called "social security program?" The program would have been
struck down as unconstitutional but for the guile of one of America's
worst presidents, the socialist FDR, and a craven Supreme Court
justice.
Would have, could have, should have. Perhaps. But it wasn't because it
ISN'T Sour grapes don't work well.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down FDR's
socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he cynically proposed
a court packing scheme to seize control of the Supreme Court. Under
that threat, Justice Owen Roberts turned his back on liberty and
changed the voting pattern of the court to submit to FDR's bidding. It
was "the switch in time that socialized nine."
Regardless, it's still the law of the land.
So was slavery.
I'm afraid that you're just going to have to deal with it.
Should we bring slavery back as well?
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement trust fund"
because our so-called "contributions" are actually additional income
taxes that are deposited in the federal government's general fund, and
Social Security is nothing but a federal welfare scheme disguised as a
retirement program.
If you knew anything about how retirement plans function, you would know
and understand that Social Security is indeed a retirement program. it
pays benefits annuity style, just like every other retirement program.
Welfare program's don't do that. As far as your erroneous assertion,
FICA taxes are used to fund FICA benefits. Any surplus money the
Government takes for whatever, like paying for the unnecessary war in
Iraq are replaced with promissory notes drawn on the Treasury, which it
will most definitely make good on. Thus ALL moneys collected through
FICA taxes are used to pay for benefits through that fund.
Since the federal government was never granted the constitutional
authority to force the American people to participate or contribute to
a retirement program, the only way Congress could extract the money was
through taxation.
It was never denied that ability either.
Social Security is simply a covert way to tax the American people.
Since Social Security is a tax scheme disguised as a retirement
program, Congress can structure the rates so the federal government
collects more money in taxes than it pays out in benefits without
enraging the people.
Actually Social Security was always structured to fund its benefits from
current receipts. Now, if you want to argue that this was both
actuarially and fiscally unsound, I won't disagree with you, because it
was and is. In point of fact, that is precisely the problem that it
faces now. Fortunately, it can be fixed somewhat easily, however, i
don't feel that you are up to looking at it objectively. i get the
distinct impression that you want to stand on your soapbox and rant your
hatred to the world. That is hardly a way to present an objective
solution. Smacks more of demagoguery.
Congress can then pat itself on the back and announce to the nation
that there is a Social Security surplus for the year. This projects the
illusion that Congress is fiscally responsible and doing a wonderful
job protecting the retirement of seniors.
Actually, I think your significant misunderstanding, coupled with your
hatred is the far worse problem.
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated, it is a
welfare scheme that steals from the neediest, and it has been a path to
a Soviet style welfare state.
Actually, no. If you knew anything about how Social Security works, you
would know and understand that its formulas actually skew benefits
towards the lower earnings.
Irrelevent. Social Security is illegal under the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
16 Jan 2005 12:45:25 PM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in news:41E9CC4A.54B62B77@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
youngsters and then steal their savings away for others via the
so-called "social security program?" The program would have been
struck down as unconstitutional but for the guile of one of America's
worst presidents, the socialist FDR, and a craven Supreme Court
justice.
Would have, could have, should have. Perhaps. But it wasn't because it
ISN'T Sour grapes don't work well.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down FDR's
socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he cynically proposed
a court packing scheme to seize control of the Supreme Court. Under
that threat, Justice Owen Roberts turned his back on liberty and
changed the voting pattern of the court to submit to FDR's bidding. It
was "the switch in time that socialized nine."
Regardless, it's still the law of the land.
So was slavery.
But slavery is gone and your wish to bring it back will remain
unfulfilled.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Lichtenstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to totaldismantlement |
16 Jan 2005 03:24:39 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in news:41E9CC4A.54B62B77@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
youngsters and then steal their savings away for others via the
so-called "social security program?" The program would have been
struck down as unconstitutional but for the guile of one of America's
worst presidents, the socialist FDR, and a craven Supreme Court
justice.
Would have, could have, should have. Perhaps. But it wasn't because it
ISN'T Sour grapes don't work well.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down FDR's
socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he cynically proposed
a court packing scheme to seize control of the Supreme Court. Under
that threat, Justice Owen Roberts turned his back on liberty and
changed the voting pattern of the court to submit to FDR's bidding. It
was "the switch in time that socialized nine."
Regardless, it's still the law of the land.
So was slavery.
The operative word is WAS. Social Security IS the law of the land NOW.
I'm afraid that you're just going to have to deal with it.
Should we bring slavery back as well?
I don't make conjectures about non-existent items. I can only deal with what
IS.
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement trust fund"
because our so-called "contributions" are actually additional income
taxes that are deposited in the federal government's general fund, and
Social Security is nothing but a federal welfare scheme disguised as a
retirement program.
If you knew anything about how retirement plans function, you would know
and understand that Social Security is indeed a retirement program. it
pays benefits annuity style, just like every other retirement program.
Welfare program's don't do that. As far as your erroneous assertion,
FICA taxes are used to fund FICA benefits. Any surplus money the
Government takes for whatever, like paying for the unnecessary war in
Iraq are replaced with promissory notes drawn on the Treasury, which it
will most definitely make good on. Thus ALL moneys collected through
FICA taxes are used to pay for benefits through that fund.
Since the federal government was never granted the constitutional
authority to force the American people to participate or contribute to
a retirement program, the only way Congress could extract the money was
through taxation.
It was never denied that ability either.
Social Security is simply a covert way to tax the American people.
Since Social Security is a tax scheme disguised as a retirement
program, Congress can structure the rates so the federal government
collects more money in taxes than it pays out in benefits without
enraging the people.
Actually Social Security was always structured to fund its benefits from
current receipts. Now, if you want to argue that this was both
actuarially and fiscally unsound, I won't disagree with you, because it
was and is. In point of fact, that is precisely the problem that it
faces now. Fortunately, it can be fixed somewhat easily, however, i
don't feel that you are up to looking at it objectively. i get the
distinct impression that you want to stand on your soapbox and rant your
hatred to the world. That is hardly a way to present an objective
solution. Smacks more of demagoguery.
Congress can then pat itself on the back and announce to the nation
that there is a Social Security surplus for the year. This projects the
illusion that Congress is fiscally responsible and doing a wonderful
job protecting the retirement of seniors.
Actually, I think your significant misunderstanding, coupled with your
hatred is the far worse problem.
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated, it is a
welfare scheme that steals from the neediest, and it has been a path to
a Soviet style welfare state.
Actually, no. If you knew anything about how Social Security works, you
would know and understand that its formulas actually skew benefits
towards the lower earnings.
Irrelevent. Social Security is illegal under the Constitution.
When SCOTUS says it is , then it is. As of now, it is not. Your opinion is
irrelevant.
Alan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Lichtenstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to totaldismantlement |
16 Jan 2005 07:05:27 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in news:41EADB98.FADB4BB4@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41E9CC4A.54B62B77@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
youngsters and then steal their savings away for others via the
so-called "social security program?" The program would have been
struck down as unconstitutional but for the guile of one of
America's worst presidents, the socialist FDR, and a craven Supreme
Court justice.
Would have, could have, should have. Perhaps. But it wasn't because
it ISN'T Sour grapes don't work well.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down FDR's
socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he cynically
proposed a court packing scheme to seize control of the Supreme
Court. Under that threat, Justice Owen Roberts turned his back on
liberty and changed the voting pattern of the court to submit to
FDR's bidding. It was "the switch in time that socialized nine."
Regardless, it's still the law of the land.
So was slavery.
The operative word is WAS. Social Security IS the law of the land NOW.
I'm afraid that you're just going to have to deal with it.
Should we bring slavery back as well?
I don't make conjectures about non-existent items. I can only deal with
what IS.
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement trust fund"
because our so-called "contributions" are actually additional income
taxes that are deposited in the federal government's general fund,
and Social Security is nothing but a federal welfare scheme
disguised as a retirement program.
If you knew anything about how retirement plans function, you would
know and understand that Social Security is indeed a retirement
program. it pays benefits annuity style, just like every other
retirement program. Welfare program's don't do that. As far as your
erroneous assertion, FICA taxes are used to fund FICA benefits. Any
surplus money the Government takes for whatever, like paying for the
unnecessary war in Iraq are replaced with promissory notes drawn on
the Treasury, which it will most definitely make good on. Thus ALL
moneys collected through FICA taxes are used to pay for benefits
through that fund.
Since the federal government was never granted the constitutional
authority to force the American people to participate or contribute
to a retirement program, the only way Congress could extract the
money was through taxation.
It was never denied that ability either.
Social Security is simply a covert way to tax the American people.
Since Social Security is a tax scheme disguised as a retirement
program, Congress can structure the rates so the federal government
collects more money in taxes than it pays out in benefits without
enraging the people.
Actually Social Security was always structured to fund its benefits
from current receipts. Now, if you want to argue that this was both
actuarially and fiscally unsound, I won't disagree with you, because
it was and is. In point of fact, that is precisely the problem that
it faces now. Fortunately, it can be fixed somewhat easily, however,
i don't feel that you are up to looking at it objectively. i get the
distinct impression that you want to stand on your soapbox and rant
your hatred to the world. That is hardly a way to present an
objective solution. Smacks more of demagoguery.
Congress can then pat itself on the back and announce to the nation
that there is a Social Security surplus for the year. This projects
the illusion that Congress is fiscally responsible and doing a
wonderful job protecting the retirement of seniors.
Actually, I think your significant misunderstanding, coupled with
your hatred is the far worse problem.
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated, it is
a welfare scheme that steals from the neediest, and it has been a
path to a Soviet style welfare state.
Actually, no. If you knew anything about how Social Security works,
you would know and understand that its formulas actually skew
benefits towards the lower earnings.
Irrelevent. Social Security is illegal under the Constitution.
When SCOTUS says it is , then it is. As of now, it is not. Your
opinion is irrelevant.
They sure thought it was illegal until welfare queen FDR threatened to pack
the court.
Different time, different issue, different SCOTUS and totally irrelevant.
What FDR did is in no way germane to what exists now, or what this SCOTUS will
do or has not done now. Try posting something relevant instead of
irrelevancies. Right now, there is NO, repeat, NO case detailing anything
that you suggest in the courts or slated to come before SCOTUS. I'll leave
you to try and muddle through as to why. You see, you need to discuss topics
as they exist TODAY, not in the context of irrelevant past actions.
Alan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
16 Jan 2005 07:15:38 PM |
|
|
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in news:41EB0F58.8C259FB8@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41EADB98.FADB4BB4@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41E9CC4A.54B62B77@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number
all youngsters and then steal their savings away for others via
the so-called "social security program?" The program would have
been struck down as unconstitutional but for the guile of one of
America's worst presidents, the socialist FDR, and a craven
Supreme Court justice.
Would have, could have, should have. Perhaps. But it wasn't
because it ISN'T Sour grapes don't work well.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down
FDR's socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he
cynically proposed a court packing scheme to seize control of the
Supreme Court. Under that threat, Justice Owen Roberts turned his
back on liberty and changed the voting pattern of the court to
submit to FDR's bidding. It was "the switch in time that
socialized nine."
Regardless, it's still the law of the land.
So was slavery.
The operative word is WAS. Social Security IS the law of the land
NOW.
I'm afraid that you're just going to have to deal with it.
Should we bring slavery back as well?
I don't make conjectures about non-existent items. I can only deal
with what IS.
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement trust
fund" because our so-called "contributions" are actually
additional income taxes that are deposited in the federal
government's general fund, and Social Security is nothing but a
federal welfare scheme disguised as a retirement program.
If you knew anything about how retirement plans function, you
would know and understand that Social Security is indeed a
retirement program. it pays benefits annuity style, just like
every other retirement program. Welfare program's don't do that.
As far as your erroneous assertion, FICA taxes are used to fund
FICA benefits. Any surplus money the Government takes for
whatever, like paying for the unnecessary war in Iraq are replaced
with promissory notes drawn on the Treasury, which it will most
definitely make good on. Thus ALL moneys collected through FICA
taxes are used to pay for benefits through that fund.
Since the federal government was never granted the constitutional
authority to force the American people to participate or
contribute to a retirement program, the only way Congress could
extract the money was through taxation.
It was never denied that ability either.
Social Security is simply a covert way to tax the American
people. Since Social Security is a tax scheme disguised as a
retirement program, Congress can structure the rates so the
federal government collects more money in taxes than it pays out
in benefits without enraging the people.
Actually Social Security was always structured to fund its
benefits from current receipts. Now, if you want to argue that
this was both actuarially and fiscally unsound, I won't disagree
with you, because it was and is. In point of fact, that is
precisely the problem that it faces now. Fortunately, it can be
fixed somewhat easily, however, i don't feel that you are up to
looking at it objectively. i get the distinct impression that you
want to stand on your soapbox and rant your hatred to the world.
That is hardly a way to present an objective solution. Smacks
more of demagoguery.
Congress can then pat itself on the back and announce to the
nation that there is a Social Security surplus for the year. This
projects the illusion that Congress is fiscally responsible and
doing a wonderful job protecting the retirement of seniors.
Actually, I think your significant misunderstanding, coupled with
your hatred is the far worse problem.
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated, it
is a welfare scheme that steals from the neediest, and it has
been a path to a Soviet style welfare state.
Actually, no. If you knew anything about how Social Security
works, you would know and understand that its formulas actually
skew benefits towards the lower earnings.
Irrelevent. Social Security is illegal under the Constitution.
When SCOTUS says it is , then it is. As of now, it is not. Your
opinion is irrelevant.
They sure thought it was illegal until welfare queen FDR threatened to
pack the court.
Different time, different issue, different SCOTUS and totally
irrelevant. What FDR did is in no way germane to what exists now, or
what this SCOTUS will do or has not done now. Try posting something
relevant instead of irrelevancies. Right now, there is NO, repeat, NO
case detailing anything that you suggest in the courts or slated to come
before SCOTUS. I'll leave you to try and muddle through as to why. You
see, you need to discuss topics as they exist TODAY, not in the context
of irrelevant past actions.
The Constitution was written in the past. You probably don't think that is
relevent either. The writers of the Constitution would be pretty pissed if
they knew the government was involved in federally funded old age
insurance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Lichtenstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to totaldismantlement |
16 Jan 2005 07:21:59 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in news:41EB0F58.8C259FB8@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41EADB98.FADB4BB4@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41E9CC4A.54B62B77@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number
all youngsters and then steal their savings away for others via
the so-called "social security program?" The program would have
been struck down as unconstitutional but for the guile of one of
America's worst presidents, the socialist FDR, and a craven
Supreme Court justice.
Would have, could have, should have. Perhaps. But it wasn't
because it ISN'T Sour grapes don't work well.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down
FDR's socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he
cynically proposed a court packing scheme to seize control of the
Supreme Court. Under that threat, Justice Owen Roberts turned his
back on liberty and changed the voting pattern of the court to
submit to FDR's bidding. It was "the switch in time that
socialized nine."
Regardless, it's still the law of the land.
So was slavery.
The operative word is WAS. Social Security IS the law of the land
NOW.
I'm afraid that you're just going to have to deal with it.
Should we bring slavery back as well?
I don't make conjectures about non-existent items. I can only deal
with what IS.
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement trust
fund" because our so-called "contributions" are actually
additional income taxes that are deposited in the federal
government's general fund, and Social Security is nothing but a
federal welfare scheme disguised as a retirement program.
If you knew anything about how retirement plans function, you
would know and understand that Social Security is indeed a
retirement program. it pays benefits annuity style, just like
every other retirement program. Welfare program's don't do that.
As far as your erroneous assertion, FICA taxes are used to fund
FICA benefits. Any surplus money the Government takes for
whatever, like paying for the unnecessary war in Iraq are replaced
with promissory notes drawn on the Treasury, which it will most
definitely make good on. Thus ALL moneys collected through FICA
taxes are used to pay for benefits through that fund.
Since the federal government was never granted the constitutional
authority to force the American people to participate or
contribute to a retirement program, the only way Congress could
extract the money was through taxation.
It was never denied that ability either.
Social Security is simply a covert way to tax the American
people. Since Social Security is a tax scheme disguised as a
retirement program, Congress can structure the rates so the
federal government collects more money in taxes than it pays out
in benefits without enraging the people.
Actually Social Security was always structured to fund its
benefits from current receipts. Now, if you want to argue that
this was both actuarially and fiscally unsound, I won't disagree
with you, because it was and is. In point of fact, that is
precisely the problem that it faces now. Fortunately, it can be
fixed somewhat easily, however, i don't feel that you are up to
looking at it objectively. i get the distinct impression that you
want to stand on your soapbox and rant your hatred to the world.
That is hardly a way to present an objective solution. Smacks
more of demagoguery.
Congress can then pat itself on the back and announce to the
nation that there is a Social Security surplus for the year. This
projects the illusion that Congress is fiscally responsible and
doing a wonderful job protecting the retirement of seniors.
Actually, I think your significant misunderstanding, coupled with
your hatred is the far worse problem.
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated, it
is a welfare scheme that steals from the neediest, and it has
been a path to a Soviet style welfare state.
Actually, no. If you knew anything about how Social Security
works, you would know and understand that its formulas actually
skew benefits towards the lower earnings.
Irrelevent. Social Security is illegal under the Constitution.
When SCOTUS says it is , then it is. As of now, it is not. Your
opinion is irrelevant.
They sure thought it was illegal until welfare queen FDR threatened to
pack the court.
Different time, different issue, different SCOTUS and totally
irrelevant. What FDR did is in no way germane to what exists now, or
what this SCOTUS will do or has not done now. Try posting something
relevant instead of irrelevancies. Right now, there is NO, repeat, NO
case detailing anything that you suggest in the courts or slated to come
before SCOTUS. I'll leave you to try and muddle through as to why. You
see, you need to discuss topics as they exist TODAY, not in the context
of irrelevant past actions.
The Constitution was written in the past. You probably don't think that is
relevent either. The writers of the Constitution would be pretty pissed if
they knew the government was involved in federally funded old age
insurance.
The Constitution we follow today is the amended version which the Framers in
their wisdom provided for. Because they knew that times and conditions
change and things evolve. they were creating a document for a fluid society
that could grow. They understood that concept, which you are apparently
having much difficulty understanding yourself. So that is why we DO NOT use
past occurrences as equal to conditions as they exist today. You are trying
to do that. Conditions today are quite unlike the conditions which existed
70 years ago. We must do what is current; not what no longer exists.
Can you understand that?
Alan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
17 Jan 2005 07:18:40 AM |
|
|
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in news:41EB1338.62709267@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41EB0F58.8C259FB8@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41EADB98.FADB4BB4@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41E9CC4A.54B62B77@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number
all youngsters and then steal their savings away for others
via the so-called "social security program?" The program
would have been struck down as unconstitutional but for the
guile of one of America's worst presidents, the socialist FDR,
and a craven Supreme Court justice.
Would have, could have, should have. Perhaps. But it wasn't
because it ISN'T Sour grapes don't work well.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down
FDR's socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he
cynically proposed a court packing scheme to seize control of
the Supreme Court. Under that threat, Justice Owen Roberts
turned his back on liberty and changed the voting pattern of
the court to submit to FDR's bidding. It was "the switch in
time that socialized nine."
Regardless, it's still the law of the land.
So was slavery.
The operative word is WAS. Social Security IS the law of the land
NOW.
I'm afraid that you're just going to have to deal with it.
Should we bring slavery back as well?
I don't make conjectures about non-existent items. I can only
deal with what IS.
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement trust
fund" because our so-called "contributions" are actually
additional income taxes that are deposited in the federal
government's general fund, and Social Security is nothing but
a federal welfare scheme disguised as a retirement program.
If you knew anything about how retirement plans function, you
would know and understand that Social Security is indeed a
retirement program. it pays benefits annuity style, just like
every other retirement program. Welfare program's don't do
that. As far as your erroneous assertion, FICA taxes are used
to fund FICA benefits. Any surplus money the Government takes
for whatever, like paying for the unnecessary war in Iraq are
replaced with promissory notes drawn on the Treasury, which it
will most definitely make good on. Thus ALL moneys collected
through FICA taxes are used to pay for benefits through that
fund.
Since the federal government was never granted the
constitutional authority to force the American people to
participate or contribute to a retirement program, the only
way Congress could extract the money was through taxation.
It was never denied that ability either.
Social Security is simply a covert way to tax the American
people. Since Social Security is a tax scheme disguised as a
retirement program, Congress can structure the rates so the
federal government collects more money in taxes than it pays
out in benefits without enraging the people.
Actually Social Security was always structured to fund its
benefits from current receipts. Now, if you want to argue that
this was both actuarially and fiscally unsound, I won't
disagree with you, because it was and is. In point of fact,
that is precisely the problem that it faces now. Fortunately,
it can be fixed somewhat easily, however, i don't feel that you
are up to looking at it objectively. i get the distinct
impression that you want to stand on your soapbox and rant your
hatred to the world. That is hardly a way to present an
objective solution. Smacks more of demagoguery.
Congress can then pat itself on the back and announce to the
nation that there is a Social Security surplus for the year.
This projects the illusion that Congress is fiscally
responsible and doing a wonderful job protecting the
retirement of seniors.
Actually, I think your significant misunderstanding, coupled
with your hatred is the far worse problem.
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated,
it is a welfare scheme that steals from the neediest, and it
has been a path to a Soviet style welfare state.
Actually, no. If you knew anything about how Social Security
works, you would know and understand that its formulas actually
skew benefits towards the lower earnings.
Irrelevent. Social Security is illegal under the Constitution.
When SCOTUS says it is , then it is. As of now, it is not. Your
opinion is irrelevant.
They sure thought it was illegal until welfare queen FDR threatened
to pack the court.
Different time, different issue, different SCOTUS and totally
irrelevant. What FDR did is in no way germane to what exists now, or
what this SCOTUS will do or has not done now. Try posting something
relevant instead of irrelevancies. Right now, there is NO, repeat,
NO case detailing anything that you suggest in the courts or slated
to come before SCOTUS. I'll leave you to try and muddle through as
to why. You see, you need to discuss topics as they exist TODAY, not
in the context of irrelevant past actions.
The Constitution was written in the past. You probably don't think that
is relevent either. The writers of the Constitution would be pretty
pissed if they knew the government was involved in federally funded old
age insurance.
The Constitution we follow today is the amended version which the
Framers in their wisdom provided for. Because they knew that times and
conditions change and things evolve. they were creating a document for
a fluid society that could grow. They understood that concept, which
you are apparently having much difficulty understanding yourself. So
that is why we DO NOT use past occurrences as equal to conditions as
they exist today. You are trying to do that. Conditions today are
quite unlike the conditions which existed 70 years ago. We must do what
is current; not what no longer exists.
So you are basically saying that the Constitution changes with the times
and can be interpreted any way the courts see fit. The document is
essentially worthless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Lichtenstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to totaldismantlement |
17 Jan 2005 07:34:24 AM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in news:41EB1338.62709267@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41EB0F58.8C259FB8@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41EADB98.FADB4BB4@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41E9CC4A.54B62B77@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number
all youngsters and then steal their savings away for others
via the so-called "social security program?" The program
would have been struck down as unconstitutional but for the
guile of one of America's worst presidents, the socialist FDR,
and a craven Supreme Court justice.
Would have, could have, should have. Perhaps. But it wasn't
because it ISN'T Sour grapes don't work well.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down
FDR's socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he
cynically proposed a court packing scheme to seize control of
the Supreme Court. Under that threat, Justice Owen Roberts
turned his back on liberty and changed the voting pattern of
the court to submit to FDR's bidding. It was "the switch in
time that socialized nine."
Regardless, it's still the law of the land.
So was slavery.
The operative word is WAS. Social Security IS the law of the land
NOW.
I'm afraid that you're just going to have to deal with it.
Should we bring slavery back as well?
I don't make conjectures about non-existent items. I can only
deal with what IS.
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement trust
fund" because our so-called "contributions" are actually
additional income taxes that are deposited in the federal
government's general fund, and Social Security is nothing but
a federal welfare scheme disguised as a retirement program.
If you knew anything about how retirement plans function, you
would know and understand that Social Security is indeed a
retirement program. it pays benefits annuity style, just like
every other retirement program. Welfare program's don't do
that. As far as your erroneous assertion, FICA taxes are used
to fund FICA benefits. Any surplus money the Government takes
for whatever, like paying for the unnecessary war in Iraq are
replaced with promissory notes drawn on the Treasury, which it
will most definitely make good on. Thus ALL moneys collected
through FICA taxes are used to pay for benefits through that
fund.
Since the federal government was never granted the
constitutional authority to force the American people to
participate or contribute to a retirement program, the only
way Congress could extract the money was through taxation.
It was never denied that ability either.
Social Security is simply a covert way to tax the American
people. Since Social Security is a tax scheme disguised as a
retirement program, Congress can structure the rates so the
federal government collects more money in taxes than it pays
out in benefits without enraging the people.
Actually Social Security was always structured to fund its
benefits from current receipts. Now, if you want to argue that
this was both actuarially and fiscally unsound, I won't
disagree with you, because it was and is. In point of fact,
that is precisely the problem that it faces now. Fortunately,
it can be fixed somewhat easily, however, i don't feel that you
are up to looking at it objectively. i get the distinct
impression that you want to stand on your soapbox and rant your
hatred to the world. That is hardly a way to present an
objective solution. Smacks more of demagoguery.
Congress can then pat itself on the back and announce to the
nation that there is a Social Security surplus for the year.
This projects the illusion that Congress is fiscally
responsible and doing a wonderful job protecting the
retirement of seniors.
Actually, I think your significant misunderstanding, coupled
with your hatred is the far worse problem.
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated,
it is a welfare scheme that steals from the neediest, and it
has been a path to a Soviet style welfare state.
Actually, no. If you knew anything about how Social Security
works, you would know and understand that its formulas actually
skew benefits towards the lower earnings.
Irrelevent. Social Security is illegal under the Constitution.
When SCOTUS says it is , then it is. As of now, it is not. Your
opinion is irrelevant.
They sure thought it was illegal until welfare queen FDR threatened
to pack the court.
Different time, different issue, different SCOTUS and totally
irrelevant. What FDR did is in no way germane to what exists now, or
what this SCOTUS will do or has not done now. Try posting something
relevant instead of irrelevancies. Right now, there is NO, repeat,
NO case detailing anything that you suggest in the courts or slated
to come before SCOTUS. I'll leave you to try and muddle through as
to why. You see, you need to discuss topics as they exist TODAY, not
in the context of irrelevant past actions.
The Constitution was written in the past. You probably don't think that
is relevent either. The writers of the Constitution would be pretty
pissed if they knew the government was involved in federally funded old
age insurance.
The Constitution we follow today is the amended version which the
Framers in their wisdom provided for. Because they knew that times and
conditions change and things evolve. they were creating a document for
a fluid society that could grow. They understood that concept, which
you are apparently having much difficulty understanding yourself. So
that is why we DO NOT use past occurrences as equal to conditions as
they exist today. You are trying to do that. Conditions today are
quite unlike the conditions which existed 70 years ago. We must do what
is current; not what no longer exists.
So you are basically saying that the Constitution changes with the times
and can be interpreted any way the courts see fit.
Now you got it right.
The document is
essentially worthless.
And there we have the words of wisdom from one of the intellectually
challenged. I think we've reached the end of discussion. I have low
tolerance for stupidity. Especially emotional stupidity.
Alan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
17 Jan 2005 07:49:50 AM |
|
|
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in news:41EBBEE0.6AE0F1BD@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41EB1338.62709267@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41EB0F58.8C259FB8@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41EADB98.FADB4BB4@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in
news:41E9CC4A.54B62B77@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to
number all youngsters and then steal their savings away for
others via the so-called "social security program?" The
program would have been struck down as unconstitutional but
for the guile of one of America's worst presidents, the
socialist FDR, and a craven Supreme Court justice.
Would have, could have, should have. Perhaps. But it
wasn't because it ISN'T Sour grapes don't work well.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking
down FDR's socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that
he cynically proposed a court packing scheme to seize
control of the Supreme Court. Under that threat, Justice
Owen Roberts turned his back on liberty and changed the
voting pattern of the court to submit to FDR's bidding. It
was "the switch in time that socialized nine."
Regardless, it's still the law of the land.
So was slavery.
The operative word is WAS. Social Security IS the law of the
land NOW.
I'm afraid that you're just going to have to deal with it.
Should we bring slavery back as well?
I don't make conjectures about non-existent items. I can only
deal with what IS.
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement
trust fund" because our so-called "contributions" are
actually additional income taxes that are deposited in the
federal government's general fund, and Social Security is
nothing but a federal welfare scheme disguised as a
retirement program.
If you knew anything about how retirement plans function,
you would know and understand that Social Security is indeed
a retirement program. it pays benefits annuity style, just
like every other retirement program. Welfare program's don't
do that. As far as your erroneous assertion, FICA taxes are
used to fund FICA benefits. Any surplus money the
Government takes for whatever, like paying for the
unnecessary war in Iraq are replaced with promissory notes
drawn on the Treasury, which it will most definitely make
good on. Thus ALL moneys collected through FICA taxes are
used to pay for benefits through that fund.
Since the federal government was never granted the
constitutional authority to force the American people to
participate or contribute to a retirement program, the only
way Congress could extract the money was through taxation.
It was never denied that ability either.
Social Security is simply a covert way to tax the American
people. Since Social Security is a tax scheme disguised as
a retirement program, Congress can structure the rates so
the federal government collects more money in taxes than it
pays out in benefits without enraging the people.
Actually Social Security was always structured to fund its
benefits from current receipts. Now, if you want to argue
that this was both actuarially and fiscally unsound, I won't
disagree with you, because it was and is. In point of fact,
that is precisely the problem that it faces now.
Fortunately, it can be fixed somewhat easily, however, i
don't feel that you are up to looking at it objectively. i
get the distinct impression that you want to stand on your
soapbox and rant your hatred to the world. That is hardly a
way to present an objective solution. Smacks more of
demagoguery.
Congress can then pat itself on the back and announce to
the nation that there is a Social Security surplus for the
year. This projects the illusion that Congress is fiscally
responsible and doing a wonderful job protecting the
retirement of seniors.
Actually, I think your significant misunderstanding, coupled
with your hatred is the far worse problem.
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever
perpetrated, it is a welfare scheme that steals from the
neediest, and it has been a path to a Soviet style welfare
state.
Actually, no. If you knew anything about how Social
Security works, you would know and understand that its
formulas actually skew benefits towards the lower earnings.
Irrelevent. Social Security is illegal under the Constitution.
When SCOTUS says it is , then it is. As of now, it is not.
Your opinion is irrelevant.
They sure thought it was illegal until welfare queen FDR
threatened to pack the court.
Different time, different issue, different SCOTUS and totally
irrelevant. What FDR did is in no way germane to what exists now,
or what this SCOTUS will do or has not done now. Try posting
something relevant instead of irrelevancies. Right now, there is
NO, repeat, NO case detailing anything that you suggest in the
courts or slated to come before SCOTUS. I'll leave you to try and
muddle through as to why. You see, you need to discuss topics as
they exist TODAY, not in the context of irrelevant past actions.
The Constitution was written in the past. You probably don't think
that is relevent either. The writers of the Constitution would be
pretty pissed if they knew the government was involved in federally
funded old age insurance.
The Constitution we follow today is the amended version which the
Framers in their wisdom provided for. Because they knew that times
and conditions change and things evolve. they were creating a
document for a fluid society that could grow. They understood that
concept, which you are apparently having much difficulty
understanding yourself. So that is why we DO NOT use past
occurrences as equal to conditions as they exist today. You are
trying to do that. Conditions today are quite unlike the conditions
which existed 70 years ago. We must do what is current; not what no
longer exists.
So you are basically saying that the Constitution changes with the
times and can be interpreted any way the courts see fit.
Now you got it right.
If that were the case then the Constitution means nothing. The whole
argument that the Constitution should be interpreted as a living, breathing
document is completely undermining to our republic.
The Constitution is a body of law that can only be amended if the
government goes to great lengths to change it. The very reason the
Constitution is so difficult to amend is to prevent those in power from
treating it as something that changes with the wind. The Constitution and
its meaning was set in stone the day it was written, and the only way to
change it is with an amendment.
The document is essentially worthless.
And there we have the words of wisdom from one of the intellectually
challenged. I think we've reached the end of discussion. I have low
tolerance for stupidity. Especially emotional stupidity.
Can't handle it when you are wrong, eh?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Draccus" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
17 Jan 2005 12:29:03 AM |
|
|
Really do you have a Quote to back that up orr are you able to read the
thoughts of the writters from your room naked with the tin foil hat?
The Constitutionality of laws is not determined by you it is determined
by the USSC.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ward stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
16 Jan 2005 06:05:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:24:39 -1000, Alan Lichtenstein wrote
(in article <41EADB98.FADB4BB4@xyz.com>):
Gactimus wrote:
Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xyz.com> wrote in news:41E9CC4A.54B62B77@xyz.com:
Gactimus wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
youngsters and then steal their savings away for others via the
so-called "social security program?" The program would have been
struck down as unconstitutional but for the guile of one of America's
worst presidents, the socialist FDR, and a craven Supreme Court
justice.
Would have, could have, should have. Perhaps. But it wasn't because it
ISN'T Sour grapes don't work well.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down FDR's
socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he cynically proposed
a court packing scheme to seize control of the Supreme Court. Under
that threat, Justice Owen Roberts turned his back on liberty and
changed the voting pattern of the court to submit to FDR's bidding. It
was "the switch in time that socialized nine."
Regardless, it's still the law of the land.
So was slavery.
The operative word is WAS. Social Security IS the law of the land NOW.
I'm afraid that you're just going to have to deal with it.
Should we bring slavery back as well?
I don't make conjectures about non-existent items. I can only deal with what
IS.
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement trust fund"
because our so-called "contributions" are actually additional income
taxes that are deposited in the federal government's general fund, and
Social Security is nothing but a federal welfare scheme disguised as a
retirement program.
If you knew anything about how retirement plans function, you would know
and understand that Social Security is indeed a retirement program. it
pays benefits annuity style, just like every other retirement program.
Welfare program's don't do that. As far as your erroneous assertion,
FICA taxes are used to fund FICA benefits. Any surplus money the
Government takes for whatever, like paying for the unnecessary war in
Iraq are replaced with promissory notes drawn on the Treasury, which it
will most definitely make good on. Thus ALL moneys collected through
FICA taxes are used to pay for benefits through that fund.
Since the federal government was never granted the constitutional
authority to force the American people to participate or contribute to
a retirement program, the only way Congress could extract the money was
through taxation.
It was never denied that ability either.
Social Security is simply a covert way to tax the American people.
Since Social Security is a tax scheme disguised as a retirement
program, Congress can structure the rates so the federal government
collects more money in taxes than it pays out in benefits without
enraging the people.
Actually Social Security was always structured to fund its benefits from
current receipts. Now, if you want to argue that this was both
actuarially and fiscally unsound, I won't disagree with you, because it
was and is. In point of fact, that is precisely the problem that it
faces now. Fortunately, it can be fixed somewhat easily, however, i
don't feel that you are up to looking at it objectively. i get the
distinct impression that you want to stand on your soapbox and rant your
hatred to the world. That is hardly a way to present an objective
solution. Smacks more of demagoguery.
Congress can then pat itself on the back and announce to the nation
that there is a Social Security surplus for the year. This projects the
illusion that Congress is fiscally responsible and doing a wonderful
job protecting the retirement of seniors.
Actually, I think your significant misunderstanding, coupled with your
hatred is the far worse problem.
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated, it is a
welfare scheme that steals from the neediest, and it has been a path to
a Soviet style welfare state.
Actually, no. If you knew anything about how Social Security works, you
would know and understand that its formulas actually skew benefits
towards the lower earnings.
Irrelevent. Social Security is illegal under the Constitution.
When SCOTUS says it is , then it is. As of now, it is not. Your opinion is
irrelevant.
Alan
Goofy too! These folks will advance any sort of nonsense that will enable
the folks who brought us Enron and WorldCom to "help" us with our social
security -- they see a financial "opportunity" and are slathering in their
eagerness to get their fists into the pie!
ward
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rune Børsjø" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
15 Jan 2005 01:45:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:46:44 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
And you call yourself a christian. Shame on you. You and most
americans are satanists, who put themselves before all others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sea Wasp" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
15 Jan 2005 01:56:35 PM |
|
|
Rune Børsjø wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:46:44 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
And you call yourself a christian. Shame on you. You and most
americans are satanists, who put themselves before all others.
No, if I was a SATANist, I'd put SATAN before all others.
Instead, he will come in later, as my servant. MUAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
15 Jan 2005 04:58:00 PM |
|
|
Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in
news:41E9762D.7030700@sgeobviousinc.com:
Rune Børsjø wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:46:44 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
And you call yourself a christian. Shame on you. You and most
americans are satanists, who put themselves before all others.
No, if I was a SATANist, I'd put SATAN before all others.
Instead, he will come in later, as my servant.
MUAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
So, Gactimas-Snubis-Xomacunt is now "Sea Wasp"?
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Sichel" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
15 Jan 2005 08:43:21 PM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
Sea Wasp <seaobviouswasp@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in
news:41E9762D.7030700@sgeobviousinc.com:
Rune Børsjø wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:46:44 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
And you call yourself a christian. Shame on you. You and most
americans are satanists, who put themselves before all others.
No, if I was a SATANist, I'd put SATAN before all others.
Instead, he will come in later, as my servant.
MUAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
So, Gactimas-Snubis-Xomacunt is now "Sea Wasp"?
No, "Sea Wasp" is a respected long-time poster on rec.arts.sf.written,
who should know better than to respond to a crossposted troll like this.
Go stand in the corner, Ryk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sea Wasp" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
16 Jan 2005 05:55:09 AM |
|
|
Danny Sichel wrote:
So, Gactimas-Snubis-Xomacunt is now "Sea Wasp"?
No, "Sea Wasp" is a respected long-time poster on rec.arts.sf.written,
who should know better than to respond to a crossposted troll like this.
Go stand in the corner, Ryk.
"Who's more the fool, the fool or the fool who follows up to him?"
Occasionally it amuses me to heckle them. It's not like I expect
any of them to listen.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rune Børsjø" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
15 Jan 2005 11:58:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:43:21 -0500, Danny Sichel <dsichel@canada.com>
wrote:
No, "Sea Wasp" is a respected long-time poster on rec.arts.sf.written,
who should know better than to respond to a crossposted troll like this.
I do hope you're refering to Gactimus. As to why I bother?
Entertainment.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
15 Jan 2005 04:30:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:46:44 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
youngsters and then steal their savings away for others via the so-called
"social security program?" The program would have been struck down as
unconstitutional but for the guile of one of America's worst presidents,
the socialist FDR, and a craven Supreme Court justice.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down FDR's
socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he cynically proposed a
court packing scheme to seize control of the Supreme Court. Under that
threat, Justice Owen Roberts turned his back on liberty and changed the
voting pattern of the court to submit to FDR's bidding. It was "the switch
in time that socialized nine."
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement trust fund" because
our so-called "contributions" are actually additional income taxes that
are deposited in the federal government's general fund, and Social
Security is nothing but a federal welfare scheme disguised as a retirement
program.
Since the federal government was never granted the constitutional
authority to force the American people to participate or contribute to a
retirement program, the only way Congress could extract the money was
through taxation.
BUT every civilised country has social security.
Social Security is simply a covert way to tax the American people. Since
Social Security is a tax scheme disguised as a retirement program,
Congress can structure the rates so the federal government collects more
money in taxes than it pays out in benefits without enraging the people.
Congress can then pat itself on the back and announce to the nation that
there is a Social Security surplus for the year. This projects the
illusion that Congress is fiscally responsible and doing a wonderful job
protecting the retirement of seniors.
Social Security is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated, it is a
welfare scheme that steals from the neediest, and it has been a path to a
Soviet style welfare state.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
15 Jan 2005 06:04:03 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1105828240.e194f6a184329a66b601f239bc3803db@teranews:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:46:44 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
youngsters and then steal their savings away for others via the
so-called "social security program?" The program would have been struck
down as unconstitutional but for the guile of one of America's worst
presidents, the socialist FDR, and a craven Supreme Court justice.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down FDR's
socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he cynically proposed a
court packing scheme to seize control of the Supreme Court. Under that
threat, Justice Owen Roberts turned his back on liberty and changed the
voting pattern of the court to submit to FDR's bidding. It was "the
switch in time that socialized nine."
As for Social Security itself, there is no "retirement trust fund"
because our so-called "contributions" are actually additional income
taxes that are deposited in the federal government's general fund, and
Social Security is nothing but a federal welfare scheme disguised as a
retirement program.
Since the federal government was never granted the constitutional
authority to force the American people to participate or contribute to a
retirement program, the only way Congress could extract the money was
through taxation.
BUT every civilised country has social security.
And your point being...?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Christie" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Security reform is hopefully first step to total dismantlement |
15 Jan 2005 11:20:31 AM |
|
|
Your mother definately dropped you on your head when you were a baby.
--
Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:UNbGd.138435$Uf.102917@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Is it wise (or constitutional) for the US government to number all
youngsters and then steal their savings away for others via the so-called
"social security program?" The program would have been struck down as
unconstitutional but for the guile of one of America's worst presidents,
the socialist FDR, and a craven Supreme Court justice.
Back in 1935, the Supreme Court had a pattern of striking down FDR's
socialist scams for years. FDR was so angry that he cynically proposed a
court packing scheme to seize control of the Supreme Court. Under that
threat, Justice O | |
