Beating Social Security

[Jarlaxle]

Sun Devil, run my little man, run. RW is after you! Stop and cash your social security check first, though.

Are you on LSD?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So would you like SS to refund all your contributions and take you off the program?

Oh, right, you don't work. You don't have SS contributions.

I would be perfectly happy to just write off everything that has already been taken (it's gone forever) if I could stop having more money taken for something I will never see.

Nobody gets SS anymore? lol, you're stupid.

Do you have a SPECIAL computer, that lets you read things I never posted?

You said the money we pay in is gone forever. If that's true then no money is available to pay benefits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Constitutionality of Social Security Act

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decisions.)

1937 Supreme Court Opinions

• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Helvering vs. Davis.
• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis, plus dissents.
• The full text of Justice Stone's opinion in Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper, plus dissent.

Other Legal Rulings

• Other Legal Rulings Related to Social Security

MORE: Social Security History

Social Security has clearly been ruled to be constitutional.

Try to understand this:

No matter what a judge claims.....they never had the authority to change the Constitution.


Never.

There are statements to the contrary that are meant to persuade fools like you.


Only an amendment, as per Article five, can do that.

That's a fact.

Justice Cardozo was not just a judge. He sat on the Supreme Court and his writings on the Social Security constitutionality was a response to the SCOTUS ruling the Social Security was constitutional. When Supreme Court rules something is constitutional it is or becomes constitutional. Claims that SCOTUS rulings are unconstitutional are nothing more than meaningless opinions with absolutely no legal standing.
If you were to read the 1937 SCOTUS rulings you would learn that Social Security was written so that the taxes collected to fund it fit into the category of an excise tax and the Courts confirmed the funding as being excise taxes.

Yes, the Supreme COurt has a very long historn of using the Constitution as toilet paper.

waaa.

Got a better idea for determining the constitutionality of laws?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sun Devil, run my little man, run. RW is after you! Stop and cash your social security check first, though.

Are you on LSD?

You are adorable!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

Privatization of Social Security is a stupid fucking idea. Had it been in place when the housing bubble burst a lot of Seniors wouldn't have any income and the US would see the world's most violent form of anarchy. Quit sucking the corporate dick and start using your other head so you're able to think things out.

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Constitutionality of Social Security Act

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decisions.)

1937 Supreme Court Opinions

• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Helvering vs. Davis.
• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis, plus dissents.
• The full text of Justice Stone's opinion in Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper, plus dissent.

Other Legal Rulings

• Other Legal Rulings Related to Social Security

MORE: Social Security History

Social Security has clearly been ruled to be constitutional.

Try to understand this:

No matter what a judge claims.....they never had the authority to change the Constitution.


Never.

There are statements to the contrary that are meant to persuade fools like you.


Only an amendment, as per Article five, can do that.

That's a fact.

Justice Cardozo was not just a judge. He sat on the Supreme Court and his writings on the Social Security constitutionality was a response to the SCOTUS ruling the Social Security was constitutional. When Supreme Court rules something is constitutional it is or becomes constitutional. Claims that SCOTUS rulings are unconstitutional are nothing more than meaningless opinions with absolutely no legal standing.
If you were to read the 1937 SCOTUS rulings you would learn that Social Security was written so that the taxes collected to fund it fit into the category of an excise tax and the Courts confirmed the funding as being excise taxes.

Yes, the Supreme COurt has a very long historn of using the Constitution as toilet paper.

waaa.

Got a better idea for determining the constitutionality of laws?

Absolutely!

Use the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Constitutionality of Social Security Act

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decisions.)

1937 Supreme Court Opinions

• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Helvering vs. Davis.
• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis, plus dissents.
• The full text of Justice Stone's opinion in Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper, plus dissent.

Other Legal Rulings

• Other Legal Rulings Related to Social Security

MORE: Social Security History

Social Security has clearly been ruled to be constitutional.

Try to understand this:

No matter what a judge claims.....they never had the authority to change the Constitution.


Never.

There are statements to the contrary that are meant to persuade fools like you.


Only an amendment, as per Article five, can do that.

That's a fact.

Justice Cardozo was not just a judge. He sat on the Supreme Court and his writings on the Social Security constitutionality was a response to the SCOTUS ruling the Social Security was constitutional. When Supreme Court rules something is constitutional it is or becomes constitutional. Claims that SCOTUS rulings are unconstitutional are nothing more than meaningless opinions with absolutely no legal standing.
If you were to read the 1937 SCOTUS rulings you would learn that Social Security was written so that the taxes collected to fund it fit into the category of an excise tax and the Courts confirmed the funding as being excise taxes.

Yes, the Supreme COurt has a very long historn of using the Constitution as toilet paper.

waaa.

Got a better idea for determining the constitutionality of laws?

Absolutely!

Use the Constitution.

It is being used. Conservatism isn't as constitutional as you think it is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Constitutionality of Social Security Act

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decisions.)

1937 Supreme Court Opinions

• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Helvering vs. Davis.
• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis, plus dissents.
• The full text of Justice Stone's opinion in Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper, plus dissent.

Other Legal Rulings

• Other Legal Rulings Related to Social Security

MORE: Social Security History

Social Security has clearly been ruled to be constitutional.

Try to understand this:

No matter what a judge claims.....they never had the authority to change the Constitution.


Never.

There are statements to the contrary that are meant to persuade fools like you.


Only an amendment, as per Article five, can do that.

That's a fact.

Justice Cardozo was not just a judge. He sat on the Supreme Court and his writings on the Social Security constitutionality was a response to the SCOTUS ruling the Social Security was constitutional. When Supreme Court rules something is constitutional it is or becomes constitutional. Claims that SCOTUS rulings are unconstitutional are nothing more than meaningless opinions with absolutely no legal standing.
If you were to read the 1937 SCOTUS rulings you would learn that Social Security was written so that the taxes collected to fund it fit into the category of an excise tax and the Courts confirmed the funding as being excise taxes.

Yes, the Supreme COurt has a very long historn of using the Constitution as toilet paper.

waaa.

Got a better idea for determining the constitutionality of laws?

Absolutely!

Use the Constitution.

Reagan saved Social Security when he could have let it go bankrupt.

Are you using a different Constitution than Reagan's?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Try to understand this:

No matter what a judge claims.....they never had the authority to change the Constitution.


Never.

There are statements to the contrary that are meant to persuade fools like you.


Only an amendment, as per Article five, can do that.

That's a fact.

Justice Cardozo was not just a judge. He sat on the Supreme Court and his writings on the Social Security constitutionality was a response to the SCOTUS ruling the Social Security was constitutional. When Supreme Court rules something is constitutional it is or becomes constitutional. Claims that SCOTUS rulings are unconstitutional are nothing more than meaningless opinions with absolutely no legal standing.
If you were to read the 1937 SCOTUS rulings you would learn that Social Security was written so that the taxes collected to fund it fit into the category of an excise tax and the Courts confirmed the funding as being excise taxes.

Yes, the Supreme COurt has a very long historn of using the Constitution as toilet paper.

waaa.

Got a better idea for determining the constitutionality of laws?

Absolutely!

Use the Constitution.

It is being used. Conservatism isn't as constitutional as you think it is.

Wrong again.

During the Progressive era the use of the Constitution has receded, and the decisions of judges, known as 'case law', has replaced same.

a. " Is it not ironic that those who favor policy-making by the Supreme Court claim that lower court judges should slavishly follow supreme court case law that has been totally made up."
'Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,’ Steven G. Calabresi

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC wants to make up a whole new Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Try to understand this:

No matter what a judge claims.....they never had the authority to change the Constitution.


Never.

There are statements to the contrary that are meant to persuade fools like you.


Only an amendment, as per Article five, can do that.

That's a fact.

Justice Cardozo was not just a judge. He sat on the Supreme Court and his writings on the Social Security constitutionality was a response to the SCOTUS ruling the Social Security was constitutional. When Supreme Court rules something is constitutional it is or becomes constitutional. Claims that SCOTUS rulings are unconstitutional are nothing more than meaningless opinions with absolutely no legal standing.
If you were to read the 1937 SCOTUS rulings you would learn that Social Security was written so that the taxes collected to fund it fit into the category of an excise tax and the Courts confirmed the funding as being excise taxes.

Yes, the Supreme COurt has a very long historn of using the Constitution as toilet paper.

waaa.

Got a better idea for determining the constitutionality of laws?

Absolutely!

Use the Constitution.

Reagan saved Social Security when he could have let it go bankrupt.

Are you using a different Constitution than Reagan's?

And this is why brain-dead ideologues are called 'Lock-Step Liberals.'

Learn this from the first Republican President:

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."
Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854),

 

[Skull Pilot]

Anyone who had control of the 15% of their life time income confiscated by the government for SS would be much better off and I daresay would have something left to leave their families when they die

SS is nothing but guaranteed government dependence

 

[Old Rocks]

PC makes up lots of things. Living in an alternative universe results in that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anyone who had control of the 15% of their life time income confiscated by the government for SS would be much better off and I daresay would have something left to leave their families when they die

SS is nothing but guaranteed government dependence

Absolutely, totally correct.

I may write you in in the next election.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC makes up lots of things. Living in an alternative universe results in that.

Yet you were unable to give any examples of anything.......anything......that I 'made up.'

Makes you appear quite the prevaricator, huh?

Better go look that up before you imagine it to be a compliment.

 

[rightwinger]

Social Security works.
Ask Social Security receipients if they want it privatized

Anyone who wants a personal savings account is free to open one tax free. many employers will also provide matching funds

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC never, ever supports her allegations that she makes up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Social Security works.
Ask Social Security receipients if they want it privatized

Anyone who wants a personal savings account is free to open one tax free. many employers will also provide matching funds

How many employer match deposits to a personal savings account?

And You can say SS works but then again so does a horse drawn carriage so tell me would you pick that over a car?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell me how many of you have actually figured out how much money you would have if you had invested the 15% of your life time income instead of it being confiscated by the fucking government?

I have and if I had had control of it I would be retired already

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Anyone who had control of the 15% of their life time income confiscated by the government for SS would be much better off and I daresay would have something left to leave their families when they die

SS is nothing but guaranteed government dependence

The 15.3% does more than provide retirement benefits. You are really talking about 10.6% (soon to be less because of DI). They would be worse off if they keep the 15%, 10.6%, 10% if the government has to raise income taxes in order to pay benefits to existing retirees. Unless you will tell retirees to pound sand, the deal you are suggesting does nothing but change the name of the tax.