Angle referrs to Social Security as WELFARE!

[ConHog]

He's an idiot. SS is not welfare, it is a return of money taken out of your paycheck.

And military retirement pay is a social program...if RetardedSargent wants to pretend a social program is welfare...well, he is retarded.

Military retirement is no more a 'social program' than your 401K or retirement fund is....

Just because you want it to be so that you can take a crack at vets who EARNED all of their benefits, does not make it so bitch

401 K and retirement funds are also social programs, bitch.

The only part of social security that is welfare is SSI, that is pure welfare, t he rest is money you paid in. Well unless you're like 90 and then I guess it could be argued that you probably didn't pay in as much as you are drawing out, but that's just part of it.

 

[Ravi]

Military retirement is no more a 'social program' than your 401K or retirement fund is....

Just because you want it to be so that you can take a crack at vets who EARNED all of their benefits, does not make it so bitch

401 K and retirement funds are also social programs, bitch.

No... they are not... they are a service provided as compensation for employment services rendered.... a government provided entitlement regardless of any service rendered by the person receiving benefit would be a social program

You see... welfare, subsidies, entitlements... those would indeed be social programs.... something you derive out of agreed to compensation for services rendered from employment is not a social program (whether or not it is government employment or private employment)... it is easy to understand... unless you are a winger trying to find another way to bash veterans and those who have served

I have no interest in bashing veterans. That is your projection.

401Ks are a social program (you don't have to pay taxes on them until you withdraw...usually when you are older and at a reduced rate). Retirement funds are also a social program...they are a program offered as an employment benefit. All group benefits by definition are social benefits...including military retirement and healthcare (even more of a social benefit than a private retirement fund because taxpayers pay for it).

You can whine, disagree, name-call and melt down all you want, but facts are facts.

 

[DiamondDave]

401 K and retirement funds are also social programs, bitch.

No... they are not... they are a service provided as compensation for employment services rendered.... a government provided entitlement regardless of any service rendered by the person receiving benefit would be a social program

You see... welfare, subsidies, entitlements... those would indeed be social programs.... something you derive out of agreed to compensation for services rendered from employment is not a social program (whether or not it is government employment or private employment)... it is easy to understand... unless you are a winger trying to find another way to bash veterans and those who have served

I have no interest in bashing veterans. That is your projection.

401Ks are a social program (you don't have to pay taxes on them until you withdraw...usually when you are older and at a reduced rate). Retirement funds are also a social program...they are a program offered as an employment benefit. All group benefits by definition are social benefits...including military retirement and healthcare (even more of a social benefit than a private retirement fund because taxpayers pay for it).

You can whine, disagree, name-call and melt down all you want, but facts are facts.

No Ravi.... you are indeed wrong... the taxation or non-taxation or tax code has nothing to do with the motherfucking fact that a 401K or retirement pension fund is an EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT and not a damn social program....

You see.. an employee deriving salary and benefit from the welfare office is not the same as the person going to collect welfare off the social program for nothing... whether it is a government job or not

Facts are facts, bitch... you just do not like them when they do not support your left-wing rhetoric

 

[Ravi]

I see your problem, well one of them anyway...welfare is a social program but not all social programs are welfare.

Maybe you should get some help with that temper.

 

[DiamondDave]

I see your problem, well one of them anyway...welfare is a social program but not all social programs are welfare.

Maybe you should get some help with that temper.

Maybe you should not equate retired or disabled veterans receiving benefits to those drawing from social welfare programs.. then you won't get vets angry at your inane statements... I rarely get angry with you, except when you occasionally bring up this bullshit comparison

Not everything done for other people is a 'social program'.... a 401K program is not available for all, employment compensation for a specific job (whether it is government or not) is not available for all... a social program or social welfare program is by definition available to all

According to your warped little definition, anything that you do not provide 100% for yourself in effort, supplies, and labors would be defined as a 'social program', for it would involve 'society' or more than 1 person..... you KNOW EXACTLY what is meant by social program... and you know that you did exactly and have continually tried to equate military employment benefit to governmental program handouts.. you have continually done this... which shows your disdain for those that serve this country in the military and that you belittle what they do to EARN their compensation

Call it social welfare, social welfare program, government assistance program, government entitlement, etc, you know EXACTLY what is meant by the term social program

social welfare: Definition from Answers.com
About the USA > Society >Social Welfare

 

[EriktheRed]

So she hides from the media and makes responses from Facebook. Yup, the Republicans and Tea Party sure did somehow pick someone worse than Reid.

Amazing how the Tea baggers turned a "can't lose" election into a "no chance" election

Wish I could share your optimism on that, but this does at least give Reid more of a chance. Hopefully her words will get more coverage in his state the closer we get to the election.

 

[JBeukema]

Given what we saw in the First Great Republican Depression, I think that Social Security is one of the greatest social inventions ever. This gaurantees that no matter how the greedy mess up the finances of the nation, the American Worker will have something at the end of his career.

No, it doesn't. You have no legal right to benefits and can be denied them for any reason at all. There is no guarantee to benefits, only to the taxation that occurs whilst you work.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So she hides from the media and makes responses from Facebook. Yup, the Republicans and Tea Party sure did somehow pick someone worse than Reid.

Amazing how the Tea baggers turned a "can't lose" election into a "no chance" election

Wish I could share your optimism on that, but this does at least give Reid more of a chance. Hopefully her words will get more coverage in his state the closer we get to the election.

If he were opposed by candidates like Kay Bailey H or Olympia Snow, then he would be toast, and that would be a good thing. However, Reid will win, no doubt about it.

 

[JBeukema]

So, yes and no. "Social Security is a statutory entitlement program. Beneficiaries have a legal entitlement to receive Social Security benefits as set forth under the Social Security Act. ...

No, they don't have any real right to benefits. It is not a right at all, but a pension that can be revoked at any time.

2. A person covered by the Social Security Act has not such a right in old-age benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 363 U. S. 608-611.
(a) The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. Pp. 363 U. S. 608-610.
(b) To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act. Pp. 363 U. S. 610-611.

FLEMMING V. NESTOR, 363 U. S. 603 :: Volume 363 :: 1960 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Nestor appointed his wife and an attorney to represent him, and in May 1958, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the benefit suspension was illegal and unconstitutional. He argued that "throughout the history of the Social Security Act, old age insurance benefits have been referred to as a right of the recipient which he has earned and paid for." He cited remarks by such politicians as President Eisenhower and Senators Eugene Millikin and Walter George, "all of which," the government's appeal noted, "in effect state that Social Security benefits are not charity or a 'hand-out,' but rather are paid to the recipient as an earned right" and linked partly to his earnings. Nestor also reasoned that his benefits "were, in fact, earned through his work and are assured as a matter of statutory right." In short, he was asking Social Security to stand by its advertising.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Nestor won in the District Court, which ruled that his benefit termination had deprived him of a "property right" which had "fully accrued" to him.
[/FONT]




[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif].....[/FONT]







[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Since the core issue was whether Nestor had been denied due process by being shorn of a "fully accrued property right" – that is, "the right to the continued receipt of social security benefits once they have been awarded" – the government understandably devoted much effort to arguing that "this view that such benefits are 'fully accrued property rights' is wholly erroneous."[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]For one thing, the Supreme Court had frequently distinguished between insurance and annuity programs, which create property rights, and pensions, which, being gratuities, do not. It had ruled that when Congress granted pension benefits, it didn't create vested rights; Congress could, if it chose, withdraw benefits conferred by gratuities. It had also ruled that pensions were gifts, not vested rights. Citing these precedents, the brief maintained that "the right to federal social security benefits is a statutory, conditional right, which the possessor enjoys subject to all the conditions which Congress has attached and may attach."[/FONT]



[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The brief summed up: " . . . social security must be viewed as a welfare instrument to which legal concepts of 'insurance,' 'property,' 'vested rights,' 'annuities,' etc., can be applied only at the risk of a serious distortion of language." Understanding the difficulties of Social Security policymaking "will be obscured by Procrustean efforts to force the social security program into the mold of inappropriate analogies."[/FONT]




[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]....[/FONT]



[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Harlan was right, obviously. Social Security has no contract. It is welfare, not insurance. The original money-back guarantee had been removed in 1939. And the benefit cuts enacted in 1983 (gradually raised retirement age, benefit taxation, gradual cuts in the early retirement benefit) are further proof that one in fact has no real property rights.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So there you are: you have no accrued, vested property right to benefits, and you shouldn't, because your Uncle Sam just simply can't tie his hands by giving you real property rights. He has to be free to shaft you if he has a "rational justification" for it, such as averting national bankruptcy when the retiring baby boomers cause the Treasury to bleed to death. (If that isn't a "rational justification" for benefit cuts, it's hard to see what would be.) He has to have that freedom, so he does. If you were born after 1945, Uncle is going to cut your benefits. Mine too.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]....[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Does anybody really think Social Security will pay everybody all benefits mandated by current law under such circumstances, which will keep getting worse as tens of millions of us baby boomers flood the beneficiary rolls?
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The projected cost of Social Security benefits under current law for 2025 is almost $2 trillion (about $1 trillion in 2003 dollars); for 2045 it's $5.2 trillion ($1.5 trillion 2003 dollars). Do you really think workers are going to cough up trillions in taxes every year for Social Security alone? Don't be silly. Uncle will cut our benefits. He'll have to. And he has all the legal cover he needs to do it. If you think you can stop him with a lawsuit, remember Ephram Nestor. He thought so too.[/FONT]​

Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian

 

[JBeukema]

He's an idiot. SS is not welfare, it is a return of money taken out of your paycheck

Fail. Your SS payments come from MY CHECK and mine would come from the next generation's.


Well, that's how it was supposed to work.


Also, you have no right to SS no matter how long you pay into it. They can deny anyone at any time fro any reason.

Well...other than the fact that I am paying into to SS you still are incorrect. It's not welfare and you can't deny it to anyone that has paid in...unless of course the government itself collapses.

Tell that to Ephram Nestor and SCOTUS

 

[JBeukema]

Consider what it really means when SOCIAL SECURITY benefits can be changed.

Social Security was SOCIAL CONTRACT was it not?

People paid into that CONTRACT and now when its time for some of us to reap the benefits of the contract, the payout is changing.

Nice, huh?

It's non-contractual.

It is a tax and a welfare program/pension, nothing more. This was the ruling of SCOTUS.

 

[Ravi]

a social program or social welfare program is by definition available to all

Military protection is available to all...and so is the opportunity to serve and partake in whatever benefits are offered by the US taxpayer (well, not the retarded or criminal but they also lose other social benefits).

 

[JBeukema]

Now you are being a dud again. No one is going to get thrown in prison.

Tax evasion is a legal offense

No one has to buy health insurance.

Do try to stay on topic

 

[Oddball]

a social program or social welfare program is by definition available to all

Military protection is available to all...and so is the opportunity to serve and partake in whatever benefits are offered by the US taxpayer (well, not the retarded or criminal but they also lose other social benefits).

Wow...That's more stretch than an girdle factory.

 

[JBeukema]

Right...Just stop paying into FICA because nobody can force you to pay in and see what happens next.

Then, set up and run a "trust fund" using the model for Socialist Insecurity and see how long you can keep the SEC out off your ass.

Go ahead...I dare ya.

SS is, by law, not a trust fund or insurance program


despite federal propaganda to the contrary

 

[JBeukema]

Bottom line: Social Servies is not Welfare and neither is Veterans Pensions. Those of you who argue they are should be thankful that SSI in there, when you mental impairment is eventually discovered.

The Justice Department disagrees

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The brief summed up: " . . . social security must be viewed as a welfare instrument to which legal concepts of 'insurance,' 'property,' 'vested rights,' 'annuities,' etc., can be applied only at the risk of a serious distortion of language." Understanding the difficulties of Social Security policymaking "will be obscured by Procrustean efforts to force the social security program into the mold of inappropriate analogies."[/FONT]

Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian

 

[JBeukema]

Legally, I think veterans' benefits are considered pensions, but I'm not 100% certain about that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Military retirement is no more a 'social program' than your 401K or retirement fund is....

Um, no, they aren't.

 

[JimH52]

Bottom line: Social Servies is not Welfare and neither is Veterans Pensions. Those of you who argue they are should be thankful that SSI in there, when you mental impairment is eventually discovered.

The Justice Department disagrees

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The brief summed up: " . . . social security must be viewed as a welfare instrument to which legal concepts of 'insurance,' 'property,' 'vested rights,' 'annuities,' etc., can be applied only at the risk of a serious distortion of language." Understanding the difficulties of Social Security policymaking "will be obscured by Procrustean efforts to force the social security program into the mold of inappropriate analogies."[/FONT]

Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian

The Justice Department?????

This guy is a loony as Angle in Nevada. Do you purposefully look for people over the edge?

John Attarian: Archives

 

[JBeukema]

Nice ad hom, but I see you didn't address the government's statement's, SCOTUS' ruling, or any of his other points. I can only assume it's because you're unable.