# The Social Security Conundrum



## DGS49 (Apr 15, 2018)

Social Security, as it now operates, is totally unconstitutional.  Congress has no power to create or operate or fund a compulsory national retirement fund.  In basic terms, the Courts have allowed it to exist based on two unpalatable points:  First, the social security tax is just that: a tax.  It is not a contribution to a retirement fund or a trust fund, or an investment, or anything like that. It is a tax.  Hence, Congress can increase, decrease, or eliminate it, at will, with no recourse by anyone.  Second, social security benefits are an "entitlement".  While entitlements are anathema to the Constitution, the courts have allowed entitlements, as long as they don't run afoul of the equal protection provisions of the Constitution.  But because they are Entitlements, Congress can increase them, decrease them, eliminate them, change eligibility criteria, or whatever, as long as "we" are all treated "equally."  That is to say, people in the same classifications have to be treated equally, regardless of race, gender, what state they live in, and so on.

But we want Social Security.  We like Social Security.  We don't want it to go away, or shrink precipitously as we grow older (NOTE:  I am 68 years old and collecting SS).

There are two possible ways to make Social Security Constitutional. One, of course would be to promulgate a Constitutional Amendment to permit it (in effect, waiving the Tenth Amendment).  The second would be to convert it into a true "trust fund."  Take Congress out of it.

A SS Trust Fund would have to be managed by some sort of a committee that would ensure that it is, and remains, economically viable.  That is to say, IT CANNOT DRAW FUNDS FROM THE TREASURY, after possibly an initial funding initiative to make it initially solvent (and recognize at least some of the billions paid in by living contributors).  So it would have to be set up with an annual BALANCED budget, and have enough flexibility to not go bankrupt as the boomers continue to retire, without dramatically reducing the stipends received by those who are currently drawing monthly checks.

Clearly, the contribution levels would have to increase. First, the cap on annual contributions would have to go.  It would be (roughly) 13% of unlimited earnings, paid jointly by employer and employee.  Non-wage income (mainly capital gains, dividends, and interest) would have to be assessed some small percentage.

Disability stipends would have to be re-assessed. Should they be part of Social Security, or should they be maintained by the Federal Government?  I say, let Washington pay for them, because the recipients have simply not paid enough to be eligible to retire.

Finally, and most painfully, some sort of means-testing would have to be implemented.  If assets are high (levels to be determined), or if other sources of income exist, then the payout might have to be adjusted for the system to remain solvent.

But all of this would not be controlled by Congress. All Congress would do is institute legal and criminal penalties for not paying or for fraud. The decisions would all be crafted by an elected Social Security Trust Fund Board.  Or something like that.

Social Security is unconstitutional, and it's time to do something about it.


----------



## Toro (Apr 15, 2018)

Social security should be set up like a regular pension plan fund, like the Canada Pension Plan, which is the Canadian SS.  It should be compulsory for all, but participants should be allowed to opt out once, and they would then have to invest it in something like a 401k.  It should be allowed to invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, etc.  The governing structure should be totally independent of political interference, made up of directors with significant investment experience. 

If we did this, it would not only make SS solvent, it would lower participant contributions because the rate of return would rise above the rate used to compound assets today.  SS may be a pay-as-you-go system but it is designed to act exactly like a government Treasury security fund.  Government Treasury securities long-term return will be low.  By investing in riskier assets, the rate of return will rise, and people's FICA taxes would go down.


----------



## regent (Apr 15, 2018)

It seems the cry, "Social Security is communism" has lessened.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 15, 2018)

Sounds similar to the gop plan they have wanted for years.   





Toro said:


> Social security should be set up like a regular pension plan fund, like the Canada Pension Plan, which is the Canadian SS.  It should be compulsory for all, but participants should be allowed to opt out once, and they would then have to invest it in something like a 401k.  It should be allowed to invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, etc.  The governing structure should be totally independent of political interference, made up of directors with significant investment experience.
> 
> If we did this, it would not only make SS solvent, it would lower participant contributions because the rate of return would rise above the rate used to compound assets today.  SS may be a pay-as-you-go system but it is designed to act exactly like a government Treasury security fund.  Government Treasury securities long-term return will be low.  By investing in riskier assets, the rate of return will rise, and people's FICA taxes would go down.


----------



## Anathema (Apr 15, 2018)

Get rid of it, permanently. Its an illegal, unconstitutional and immoral program and always has been.


----------



## WinterBorn (Apr 15, 2018)

Toro said:


> Social security should be set up like a regular pension plan fund, like the Canada Pension Plan, which is the Canadian SS.  It should be compulsory for all, but participants should be allowed to opt out once, and they would then have to invest it in something like a 401k.  It should be allowed to invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, etc.  The governing structure should be totally independent of political interference, made up of directors with significant investment experience.
> 
> If we did this, it would not only make SS solvent, it would lower participant contributions because the rate of return would rise above the rate used to compound assets today.  SS may be a pay-as-you-go system but it is designed to act exactly like a government Treasury security fund.  Government Treasury securities long-term return will be low.  By investing in riskier assets, the rate of return will rise, and people's FICA taxes would go down.



Before we try to "fix" SSI, the gov't needs to pay back the $2.9 trillion it borrowed from the fund.


----------



## WinterBorn (Apr 15, 2018)

Anathema said:


> Get rid of it, permanently. Its an illegal, unconstitutional and immoral program and always has been.



I have no problem with that.  Just give us our money back.  Right now the US Gov't owes $2.9 trillion to the SSI fund.  It has continually borrowed and not paid back one cent.


----------



## Anathema (Apr 15, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> I have no problem with that.  Just give us our money back.  Right now the US Gov't owes $2.9 trillion to the SSI fund.  It has continually borrowed and not paid back one cent.



I don't even want the collected money back. Just stop taking it out of my pay going forward.


----------



## WinterBorn (Apr 15, 2018)

Anathema said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with that.  Just give us our money back.  Right now the US Gov't owes $2.9 trillion to the SSI fund.  It has continually borrowed and not paid back one cent.
> ...



Unacceptable.   The money was taken from me by force.  Then it was taken from the fund without my approval, but with the agreement that it would be paid back.  I see no evidence that there was ever ANY intention of paying it back.   Remove the pay raises Congress voted itself, and take away the tax cuts put in place over the last 20+ years until the SSI fund is made whole.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Apr 15, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> Social Security, as it now operates, is totally unconstitutional.  Congress has no power to create or operate or fund a compulsory national retirement fund.  In basic terms, the Courts have allowed it to exist based on two unpalatable points:  First, the social security tax is just that: a tax.  It is not a contribution to a retirement fund or a trust fund, or an investment, or anything like that. It is a tax.  Hence, Congress can increase, decrease, or eliminate it, at will, with no recourse by anyone.  Second, social security benefits are an "entitlement".  While entitlements are anathema to the Constitution, the courts have allowed entitlements, as long as they don't run afoul of the equal protection provisions of the Constitution.  But because they are Entitlements, Congress can increase them, decrease them, eliminate them, change eligibility criteria, or whatever, as long as "we" are all treated "equally."  That is to say, people in the same classifications have to be treated equally, regardless of race, gender, what state they live in, and so on.
> 
> But we want Social Security.  We like Social Security.  We don't want it to go away, or shrink precipitously as we grow older (NOTE:  I am 68 years old and collecting SS).
> 
> ...


*I agree only in part.  SS was increased in the 70 s and covered more than it was suppose to.  The Democrats had a field day spending on new departments like the Education, and others Department were formed and not needed.  The SSN needs to cut off paying people who are getting 70k and years in retirement payments from other sources and reduce payments to those who have incomes over 40k and year.  Lets face it older people are not  equitable nor equal in how much money they have.  I use to be family took care of family now we farm the old folks out to the "Retirement Homes" that cost Billions of dollars.  No one is at home to look after anyone.  It is said when the government gets involved the system goes to hell.  *


----------



## Anathema (Apr 15, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Unacceptable....



Good for you. Go tilt with that windmill. See how far you get. 

All I want us for them to stop taking the money going forward. That's a pipe dream by itself, but getting anything back is high fantay.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 15, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Sounds similar to the gop plan they have wanted for years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Difference was the Repub proposals, many of which came from Libertarian think tanks had an important distinction. And that was because at the TIME -- SS was running huge SURPLUSES which were being squandered and laundered to have the APPEARANCE of "lowering the yearly deficits".  Which was a TOTAL bookkeeping fraud and theft.

The plans all centered around USING THE SURPLUSES to defer future liabilities to the plan. Allowing folks to use a SMALL portion of their FICA tax to invest in pension funds like Toro suggested. ---- In exchange for them taking less benefits at retirement.  Would have LESSENED the theft of surplus from working poor Americans and greatly LEVERAGED future system liquidity.

Can't do that now. Because we are IN the crisis that everybody knew was coming. And $50Bill surpluses have already turned into $50Bill deficits. And the $100Bill SWING in the ACTUAL treasury budget has to be funded by floating NEW debt every year.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Apr 15, 2018)

WinterBorn said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Social security should be set up like a regular pension plan fund, like the Canada Pension Plan, which is the Canadian SS.  It should be compulsory for all, but participants should be allowed to opt out once, and they would then have to invest it in something like a 401k.  It should be allowed to invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, etc.  The governing structure should be totally independent of political interference, made up of directors with significant investment experience.
> ...


Nope.  It's gone forever.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Apr 15, 2018)

regent said:


> It seems the cry, "Social Security is communism" has lessened.


Naah...it's just a Ponzi scheme.


----------



## regent (Apr 15, 2018)

Jarlaxle said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > It seems the cry, "Social Security is communism" has lessened.
> ...


Thank God  for that. All these years I thought maybe it was communistic but now I find it's only a scheme. So Republicans have lied to us since 1935.


----------



## Humorme (Apr 16, 2018)

Dan Stubbs said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > Social Security, as it now operates, is totally unconstitutional.  Congress has no power to create or operate or fund a compulsory national retirement fund.  In basic terms, the Courts have allowed it to exist based on two unpalatable points:  First, the social security tax is just that: a tax.  It is not a contribution to a retirement fund or a trust fund, or an investment, or anything like that. It is a tax.  Hence, Congress can increase, decrease, or eliminate it, at will, with no recourse by anyone.  Second, social security benefits are an "entitlement".  While entitlements are anathema to the Constitution, the courts have allowed entitlements, as long as they don't run afoul of the equal protection provisions of the Constitution.  But because they are Entitlements, Congress can increase them, decrease them, eliminate them, change eligibility criteria, or whatever, as long as "we" are all treated "equally."  That is to say, people in the same classifications have to be treated equally, regardless of race, gender, what state they live in, and so on.
> ...



So if you are affluent, you get to pay in, but not get any of your money back?  Are you really advocating socialism?


----------



## Zander (Apr 16, 2018)

My 2 cents. SS is never going to get properly fixed BUT it not going to go away any time soon. 

My guess is they'll raise the age gradually and they'll raise the threshold of income that is subject to the tax. Then they'll raise the tax paid by EMPLOYERS. Finally the tax paid by Employees. 

Each of these moves will increase the life of the program and ensure it survives. 

As for getting back the Trillions of $$$ they've raided from the program?


----------



## Mr Natural (Apr 16, 2018)

Give me everything I’ve paid into over the years, (plus a reasonable rate of return) and I’ll gladly opt out.


----------



## DGS49 (Apr 16, 2018)

Repeat after me:  "THERE IS NO TRUST FUND!"  It is a tax.  The money goes into the General Fund.  It always has.  There was never any "surplus."  That was just a fiction to make people forget that their payments were being pissed away as soon as paid, and make them think it was somehow being held for them.

The talk about Social Security running out of funds sometime in the future is a silly, insidious accounting charade.

The statements you get, telling you how much you have paid are a joke.  That money is GONE.  It is the same as if they did the same thing with your FIT.  It would be meaningless.


----------



## regent (Apr 16, 2018)

Does anyone remember when Social Security was not running out of funds?


----------



## DGS49 (Apr 17, 2018)

In the 70's, when the Boomers were just coming into the best earning years, the system was flooded with cash.  It was then that the stipends started to skyrocket, disability pensions were added, the amounts were indexed to inflation, and so on.

Initially, it was sold as a SUPPLEMENT to YOUR OWN RETIREMENT RESOURCES.  When people first started complaining that it wasn't enough to live on, they were bitch-slapped because it was never intended to be enough, by itself, to live on.  But then, the Boomer money started coming in, and Congress saw a way of buying the votes of old bastards (like me).

It was and is disgraceful.


----------



## jwoodie (Apr 17, 2018)

Social Security always was an old age welfare program masquerading as a retirement plan.  Low income contributors already get up to 4 times as much per dollar paid in than do higher income contributors.  Of course the highest income people get exempted out of this ponzi scheme by the earnings cap.

In the future, we will see an income test for all benefits similar to the earnings reductions for people who draw benefits before full retirement age.  Hopefully, we will also see elimination of the earnings cap, which is a huge tax avoidance break for high income individuals.  Why shouldn't they have to share the pain?


----------



## DGS49 (Apr 19, 2018)

When I was growing up, and Social Security monthly payments were a pittance, the "culture" in America included a mandate that we take care of our elderly parents and grandparents...and even elderly aunts and uncles who had no one else.  Many wonder why old houses are so big.  A typical middle-class household in the 30's, 40's, and 50's included a married couple, their 3-5 kids, one or two elderly grandparents, and probably an elderly uncle or aunt who "had no other place to go."  They needed a big house (usually with only one bathroom).

Admittedly, this left a lot of "Seniors" with no family to take care of them, but these were a small minority of the total.  And truth be told, some of the grandparents were not happy to be living with their children and grandchildren, who may have had to struggle financially to keep the wheels turning.

The expansion of Social Security meant - being crude about it - that you could then toss Granny out, because her Social Security became substantial enough for her to afford a small apartment and food.

The impact on the culture was profound, and has never been formally recognized.  The late Boomers and the following generations became the first to NOT have elderly relatives in their home, and we are a much-coarsened society because of it.  When my own father retired, I insisted that he come live with us, so that my son could have the experience of living with an elderly person, with all that that entails.


----------



## Erinwltr (Apr 19, 2018)

A while back, I read that some two thirds of the people receiving SS rely on it as their sole source of income.  How could anyone in good conscience get rid of SS is beside me.


----------



## Mr Natural (Apr 19, 2018)

Erinwltr said:


> A while back, I read that some two thirds of the people receiving SS rely on it as their sole source of income. How could anyone in good conscience get rid of SS is beside me.




And yet there are plenty of people over 65 years of age that vote republican.

Go figure.


----------



## MarathonMike (Apr 19, 2018)

Yes SS is an enormous problem that is only going to get worse. It is completely dependent upon current workers and employers to keep the system afloat. But....uh oh the numbers of retirees keeps going up and the numbers of new workers entering the workforce keeps dropping. Worse yet the ones entering the workforce do not make high enough incomes to pay the maximum (or anywhere near it) which is what the system needs to survive in it's present form.

Theoretically the system should be scrapped but in reality we can't do that because of the millions who totally live off their SS check. What a mess. Do you ever notice that the bigger the program, the worse our government fucks it up? What was that, it will be different with Obamacare?


----------



## sparky (Apr 19, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> Social Security, as it now operates, is totally unconstitutional.  Congress has no power to create or operate or fund a compulsory national retirement fund.  In basic terms, the Courts have allowed it to exist based on two unpalatable points:  First, the social security tax is just that: a tax.  It is not a contribution to a retirement fund or a trust fund, or an investment, or anything like that. It is a tax.  Hence, Congress can increase, decrease, or eliminate it, at will, with no recourse by anyone.  Second, social security benefits are an "entitlement".  While entitlements are anathema to the Constitution, the courts have allowed entitlements, as long as they don't run afoul of the equal protection provisions of the Constitution.  But because they are Entitlements, Congress can increase them, decrease them, eliminate them, change eligibility criteria, or whatever, as long as "we" are all treated "equally."  That is to say, people in the same classifications have to be treated equally, regardless of race, gender, what state they live in, and so on.
> 
> But we want Social Security.  We like Social Security.  We don't want it to go away, or shrink precipitously as we grow older (NOTE:  I am 68 years old and collecting SS).
> 
> ...




well that all sounds nice ,and might look good on paper, but the key term is gonna be '_balanced budget_'

~S~


----------



## regent (May 8, 2018)

When America was created we had County-Poor-Farms where poor people might go for help; they would often be fed and given a place to sleep. Of course the poor farms made them work often contracting their labor out to work on farms and such. In those Pre-Marx days the fear of communism was not that great so it was OK to be poor. Not good but at least  one was not a communist.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 12, 2018)

regent said:


> When America was created we had County-Poor-Farms where poor people might go for help; they would often be fed and given a place to sleep. Of course the poor farms made them work often contracting their labor out to work on farms and such. In those Pre-Marx days the fear of communism was not that great so it was OK to be poor. Not good but at least  one was not a communist.




Americans have never allowed their fellow citizens to starve.


----------



## regent (May 12, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > When America was created we had County-Poor-Farms where poor people might go for help; they would often be fed and given a place to sleep. Of course the poor farms made them work often contracting their labor out to work on farms and such. In those Pre-Marx days the fear of communism was not that great so it was OK to be poor. Not good but at least  one was not a communist.
> ...



As long as America had a garbage system at the beginning of The Great
Depression the more enterprising kids seemed to eat well. Fortunately Hoover had the RFC and was able to keep industry also eating well.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 12, 2018)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...




There never.....NEVER.....was any requirement for eating garbage.

This is simply the sort of lie that you Leftists.....FDR boot-lickers......offer in place of truth.

I repeat: there was never any starvation in America.




Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, welfare was handled by charities and churches, carefully considering who got the relief, and the reasons for same.


*Under FDR, welfare and charity became a patronage endeavor, to get votes rather than to ease suffering.*


The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) doled out relief nationally to those states with the best political connections. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 began with the best of intentions...but *under the Democrats it went to well-connected friends, including mayors and governors.*


Illinois, a swing state, got $55,443,721, which was almost 20% of the RFC's $300 million, more than NY,  California, and Texas combined.
Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression," p.262-263.


----------



## jwoodie (May 12, 2018)

Erinwltr said:


> A while back, I read that some two thirds of the people receiving SS rely on it as their sole source of income.  How could anyone in good conscience get rid of SS is beside me.



More than 2/3 of the people receiving (other forms of) welfare rely on it as their sole source of income.  Is this cause or effect?

The ONLY way to responsibly address these out of control "entitlement" programs is to suspend cost of living adjustments in any year that the federal budget is not balanced.  (A Constitutional Amendment would probably be required to enforce this.)

A side benefit of this approach would be to promote a consensus about balancing the budget because everyone would benefit.


----------



## regent (May 20, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


 True,there was no requirement for people to eat garbage But plenty of half eaten rolls and other food were salvaged and eaten.
RFC was Hoover's baby. RFC loaned to businesses to buy more products that already sat on the shelves and couldn't be sold. 
In the schools instead of shooting people like today the search was for someone with a lunch from home and there were some rules went with the lunch. If a student could get close to a student with a bagged lunch and yelled cobs or bites, the owner by our laws had to give the cobbee some of the lunch. If the owner saw the threat he by our laws could yell no cobs or no bites.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 21, 2018)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...





1. I fully understand the predicament you're in....
If you didn't believe the nonsense you post in defense of the dictator-wannabe, FDR, you wouldn't be able to maintain the worldview you've been indoctrinated with.

Sad, but at your advanced age, understandable.

But....like Mighty Mouse, I'm here to save the day!


*And the facts....Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "...the Socialist Savior of the Democratic Party."

*

2. For the educated, it is often difficult to fathom why FDR retains his vaunted position in the political firmament, after all, he.....
a. extended the Hoover Recession into the Great Depression
b. ended the guidance of the Constitution in America
c. destroyed the independence of the Supreme Court
d. extended the length of WWII, at great cost of blood and treasure
e. made certain that communism and Joseph Stalin survived the war, and found a home in America.

f. And...used the pretense of charity to accrue political support.

Quite a turning point in America's history.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 21, 2018)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...






"....loaned to businesses to buy more products that already sat on the shelves and couldn't be sold."

Rather than to the Americans who needed same, FDR sent these materials to his brother-from-another-mother, Joseph Stalin....

 "He (FDR) left no doubt of the importance he attached to aid to Russia. 'I would go out and take the stuff off the shelves of the stores,' he told [Treasure Secretary Henry] Morganthau on March 11, 1942, 'and pay them any price necessary, and put it in a truck and rush it to the boat...Nothing would be worse than to have the Russians collapse." 
George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. 42,56.



Of course, there was never any chance of a Russian collapse, nor of a German victory.


An interesting passage from Larsson's best seller, "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo:"

“In the early hours of *June 22 in 1941*, Lobach knocked on the door of my bedroom. My room was next to his wife’s bedroom, and he signalled me to be quiet, get dressed, and come with him. We went downstairs and sat in the smoking salon. Lobach had been up all night. He had the radio on, and I realised that something serious had happened. Operation Barbarossa had begun. Germany had invaded the Soviet Union on Midsummer Eve.” Vanger gestured in resignation. “Lobach took out two glasses and poured a generous aquavit for each of us. He was obviously shaken.* When I asked him what it all meant, he replied with foresight that it meant the end for Germany and Nazism*. I only half believed him—Hitler seemed undefeatable, after all—but Lobach and I drank a toast to the fall of Germany. Then he turned his attention to practical matters.”
Stieg Larsson, “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo,” p. 199


Soooo......why defend Stalin and Soviet Communism down to the last drop of American blood???


----------



## regent (May 21, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------



## regent (May 21, 2018)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


 And what is the point of your tattoo bit? In fact, what is the point of most of your posts? What is it, that you are trying to say? Is your goal to make FDR a bad president or what? If so, that goal has been settled some years ago, and in FDR's  favor.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 21, 2018)

regent said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





The point is

a. to reveal the sham that was Franklin Roosevelt

and

b. to reveal what a dunce you are.


I believe both aims have been accomplished.


----------



## regent (May 22, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Do you think you are going to change the evaluation of the people that voted four times  for FDR or the historians that have rated presidents since 1948? But maybe you're right, one had to live through the Great Depression and WWII to understand what went on. But then again there are the historian's  history books you can't seem to find.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 22, 2018)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...




"Do you think you are going to change the evaluation of the people that voted four times for FDR or the historians ..."


That's not my mission.

My aim is simply to provide the facts, and make it clear that fools.....you.....have no way to refute them, yet stick to the dogma you've been brought up on.


Nor am I the only one.....

".....the New Deal can be seen as a series of economic misadventures achieved through the force of mass propaganda, and owing its success solely to America’s victory in WWII.

In an insightful analysis, *John A. Garraty compared Roosevelt’s New Deal with aspects of the Third Reich*: a strong leader; an ideology stressing the nation, the people and the land; state control of economic and social affairs; and the quality and quantity of government propaganda.                                                                                             Garraty, “The New Deal,  National Socialism, and the Great Depression,” American Historical Review, vol. 78 (1973) p. 907ff.


Garraty reminds that to compare is not the same as to equate. Yet, many still find Garraty’s analysis too hot to handle.                                                                                                                                                                        But.....the truth comes out....and I am in the vanguard.


----------



## regent (May 23, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------



## regent (May 23, 2018)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Well if any  president could have been a dictator it was FDR, he was president when a lot of dictators were becoming dictators. yet when FDR died one of his sons did not assume the presidency but rather vice president Truman.  Just like it says in the Constitution.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 24, 2018)

regent said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





"if any president could have been a dictator it was FDR..."

IF??????


What prevents America from becoming a dictatorship is the Constitution.


1. Madison wrote, in Federalist #47, " No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. *The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."*
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa47.htm

2. Therein lies the description of Roosevelt. In 1937, he tried to pack the judiciary, and in 1938 attempted to purge Democrat Senators who defeated the scheme.

a. Senator Ashurst of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, denounced court packing as a "prelude to tyranny," but, when Roosevelt announced it, issued a one-line statement late that afternoon saying he was in "favor of the President's proposal." Lock-step Liberals.

b. Conservative Democrat Carter Glass of Virginia, explained it as follows: "Why, if the President asked Congress to commit suicide tomorrow they'd do it."

3. It is a fact that *none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. *
Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress. A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution." 
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 63

4. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation.

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Manly, p. 65.


5. In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone." The Brookshire Times from Brookshire, Texas on March 1, 1935 · Page 2




And, as always,....there is nothing in the post that you will be able to refute.


----------



## regent (May 24, 2018)

The Supreme Court began as a political entity, and remains so.
From 1779 the number on the Court has changed six times  by a Congress looking to get favorable verdicts.
Read some history.


















from


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 24, 2018)

regent said:


> The Supreme Court began as a political entity, and remains so.
> From 1779 the number on the Court has changed six times  by a Congress looking to get favorable verdicts.
> Read some history.
> 
> ...


----------

