Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!!!!

[PoliticalChic]

Typically entitlements refer to thing that people have paid into such as the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund,. And more recently, not letting health insurers dump you when you get sick.

Welfare cash payments (which less than 1% of Americans collect) are not strictly speaking entitlements.

So prescient of you to know where to come for an education.

As shown in the OP, 'rights' and 'entitlements' are two different things.


Good that you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



And this....

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

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get


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.....

 

[rightwinger]

Social Security was designed to provide benefits to elderly Americans so that these depression era workers could receive benefits almost immediately

Otherwise, Ida May Brown would have had to wait until 1977 until she could begin to draw benefits

 

[Agit8r]

Typically entitlements refer to thing that people have paid into such as the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund,. And more recently, not letting health insurers dump you when you get sick.

Welfare cash payments (which less than 1% of Americans collect) are not strictly speaking entitlements.

So prescient of you to know where to come for an education.

As shown in the OP, 'rights' and 'entitlements' are two different things.


Good that you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



And this....

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

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get


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.....

Obviously we need to raise the threshold for higher wage earners. Especially since the boom/bust cycle continues to bring more of those higher earners back to the gutter with each predictable but increasingly violent economic crash.

But your analysis also doesn't factor in that the treasury bill that the trust fund is invested in are supposed to earn interest between the time the money is paid in and when it is withdrawn.

The Medicare trust fund is more complicated, but suffice to say some current candidates for the presidency have offered an obvious solution: Single Payer (Medicare for All). You may not approve of it, but it fully funds Medicare, and mutes the us verses them narrative of the current medicare debate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Typically entitlements refer to thing that people have paid into such as the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund,. And more recently, not letting health insurers dump you when you get sick.

Welfare cash payments (which less than 1% of Americans collect) are not strictly speaking entitlements.

So prescient of you to know where to come for an education.

As shown in the OP, 'rights' and 'entitlements' are two different things.


Good that you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



And this....

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

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get


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.....

Obviously we need to raise the threshold for higher wage earners. Especially since the boom/bust cycle continues to bring more of those higher earners back to the gutter with each predictable but increasingly violent economic crash.

But your analysis also doesn't factor in that the treasury bill that the trust fund is invested in are supposed to earn interest between the time the money is paid in and when it is withdrawn.

The Medicare trust fund is more complicated, but suffice to say some current candidates for the presidency have offered an obvious solution: Single Payer (Medicare for All). You may not approve of it, but it fully funds Medicare, and mutes the us verses them narrative of the current medicare debate.

And the reason for you dodging this.... you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



...is what?

 

[rightwinger]

Typically entitlements refer to thing that people have paid into such as the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund,. And more recently, not letting health insurers dump you when you get sick.

Welfare cash payments (which less than 1% of Americans collect) are not strictly speaking entitlements.

So prescient of you to know where to come for an education.

As shown in the OP, 'rights' and 'entitlements' are two different things.


Good that you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



And this....

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

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get


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.....

Obviously we need to raise the threshold for higher wage earners. Especially since the boom/bust cycle continues to bring more of those higher earners back to the gutter with each predictable but increasingly violent economic crash.

But your analysis also doesn't factor in that the treasury bill that the trust fund is invested in are supposed to earn interest between the time the money is paid in and when it is withdrawn.

The Medicare trust fund is more complicated, but suffice to say some current candidates for the presidency have offered an obvious solution: Single Payer (Medicare for All). You may not approve of it, but it fully funds Medicare, and mutes the us verses them narrative of the current medicare debate.

And the reason for you dodging this.... you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



...is what?

Done in the name of General Welfare of We the People

 

[Agit8r]

Typically entitlements refer to thing that people have paid into such as the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund,. And more recently, not letting health insurers dump you when you get sick.

Welfare cash payments (which less than 1% of Americans collect) are not strictly speaking entitlements.

So prescient of you to know where to come for an education.

As shown in the OP, 'rights' and 'entitlements' are two different things.


Good that you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



And this....

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

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get


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.....

Obviously we need to raise the threshold for higher wage earners. Especially since the boom/bust cycle continues to bring more of those higher earners back to the gutter with each predictable but increasingly violent economic crash.

But your analysis also doesn't factor in that the treasury bill that the trust fund is invested in are supposed to earn interest between the time the money is paid in and when it is withdrawn.

The Medicare trust fund is more complicated, but suffice to say some current candidates for the presidency have offered an obvious solution: Single Payer (Medicare for All). You may not approve of it, but it fully funds Medicare, and mutes the us verses them narrative of the current medicare debate.

And the reason for you dodging this.... you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



...is what?

That old debate? There is nothing in the constitution specifically authorizing the government to prohibit a persons free choice of drug. There is no provision for a CIA. Sundry other things either. That debate failed around 1816. Sorry.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Typically entitlements refer to thing that people have paid into such as the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund,. And more recently, not letting health insurers dump you when you get sick.

Welfare cash payments (which less than 1% of Americans collect) are not strictly speaking entitlements.

So prescient of you to know where to come for an education.

As shown in the OP, 'rights' and 'entitlements' are two different things.


Good that you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



And this....

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

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get


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.....

Obviously we need to raise the threshold for higher wage earners. Especially since the boom/bust cycle continues to bring more of those higher earners back to the gutter with each predictable but increasingly violent economic crash.

But your analysis also doesn't factor in that the treasury bill that the trust fund is invested in are supposed to earn interest between the time the money is paid in and when it is withdrawn.

The Medicare trust fund is more complicated, but suffice to say some current candidates for the presidency have offered an obvious solution: Single Payer (Medicare for All). You may not approve of it, but it fully funds Medicare, and mutes the us verses them narrative of the current medicare debate.

And the reason for you dodging this.... you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



...is what?

That old debate? There is nothing in the constitution specifically authorizing the government to prohibit a persons free choice of drug. There is no provision for a CIA. Sundry other things either. That debate failed around 1816. Sorry.

Third time: as the Constitution is the law of the land, and the powers of the federal government are specific and enumerated....


Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



What we have here is a perfect example of the Progressive attempt to end America.t

You know very well that there is no such authorization, and that there is no 'right' to government insurance.


Why don't you simply answer as the Progressive that you are: "We don' need no stinkin' Constitution!!!"

As Teddy Roosevelt put it:
‘Well known is TR's outburst, when told the Constitution did not permit the confiscation of private property: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" Less well known is that at one point TR summoned General John M. Schofield, instructing him: "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to a writ from a judge, or anything else except my commands."’ 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. By Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (p. 139) see 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. | David Gordon



You really can't consider yourself an American, can you.

 

[danielpalos]

Women Owe us, sugary and spicery, and everything nicery! Gimme, gimme, gimme!

 

[rightwinger]

Typically entitlements refer to thing that people have paid into such as the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund,. And more recently, not letting health insurers dump you when you get sick.

Welfare cash payments (which less than 1% of Americans collect) are not strictly speaking entitlements.

So prescient of you to know where to come for an education.

As shown in the OP, 'rights' and 'entitlements' are two different things.


Good that you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



And this....

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

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get


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.....

Obviously we need to raise the threshold for higher wage earners. Especially since the boom/bust cycle continues to bring more of those higher earners back to the gutter with each predictable but increasingly violent economic crash.

But your analysis also doesn't factor in that the treasury bill that the trust fund is invested in are supposed to earn interest between the time the money is paid in and when it is withdrawn.

The Medicare trust fund is more complicated, but suffice to say some current candidates for the presidency have offered an obvious solution: Single Payer (Medicare for All). You may not approve of it, but it fully funds Medicare, and mutes the us verses them narrative of the current medicare debate.

And the reason for you dodging this.... you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



...is what?

That old debate? There is nothing in the constitution specifically authorizing the government to prohibit a persons free choice of drug. There is no provision for a CIA. Sundry other things either. That debate failed around 1816. Sorry.

Third time: as the Constitution is the law of the land, and the powers of the federal government are specific and enumerated....


Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



What we have here is a perfect example of the Progressive attempt to end America.t

You know very well that there is no such authorization, and that there is no 'right' to government insurance.


Why don't you simply answer as the Progressive that you are: "We don' need no stinkin' Constitution!!!"

As Teddy Roosevelt put it:
‘Well known is TR's outburst, when told the Constitution did not permit the confiscation of private property: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" Less well known is that at one point TR summoned General John M. Schofield, instructing him: "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to a writ from a judge, or anything else except my commands."’ 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. By Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (p. 139) see 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. | David Gordon



You really can't consider yourself an American, can you.

Article 1. Section 1

 

[Agit8r]

Typically entitlements refer to thing that people have paid into such as the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund,. And more recently, not letting health insurers dump you when you get sick.

Welfare cash payments (which less than 1% of Americans collect) are not strictly speaking entitlements.

So prescient of you to know where to come for an education.

As shown in the OP, 'rights' and 'entitlements' are two different things.


Good that you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



And this....

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

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get


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.....

Obviously we need to raise the threshold for higher wage earners. Especially since the boom/bust cycle continues to bring more of those higher earners back to the gutter with each predictable but increasingly violent economic crash.

But your analysis also doesn't factor in that the treasury bill that the trust fund is invested in are supposed to earn interest between the time the money is paid in and when it is withdrawn.

The Medicare trust fund is more complicated, but suffice to say some current candidates for the presidency have offered an obvious solution: Single Payer (Medicare for All). You may not approve of it, but it fully funds Medicare, and mutes the us verses them narrative of the current medicare debate.

And the reason for you dodging this.... you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



...is what?

That old debate? There is nothing in the constitution specifically authorizing the government to prohibit a persons free choice of drug. There is no provision for a CIA. Sundry other things either. That debate failed around 1816. Sorry.

Third time: as the Constitution is the law of the land, and the powers of the federal government are specific and enumerated....


Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



What we have here is a perfect example of the Progressive attempt to end America.t

You know very well that there is no such authorization, and that there is no 'right' to government insurance.


Why don't you simply answer as the Progressive that you are: "We don' need no stinkin' Constitution!!!"

As Teddy Roosevelt put it:
‘Well known is TR's outburst, when told the Constitution did not permit the confiscation of private property: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" Less well known is that at one point TR summoned General John M. Schofield, instructing him: "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to a writ from a judge, or anything else except my commands."’ 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. By Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (p. 139) see 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. | David Gordon



You really can't consider yourself an American, can you.

That was never how the constitution was actually interpreted by jurists. It was an arguement advance by a couple of center-left lawyers from Virginia, in order to oppose the Washington administration's more authoritarian positions. And later, when they came to power, in order to enshrine certain provisions they thought proper, directly into the constitution:

"Shall we suppress the impost and give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufactures? On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers. By these operations new channels of communication will be opened between the States; the lines of separation will disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties. Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 6th Annual Message to Congress

Knowledge will set you free.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So prescient of you to know where to come for an education.

As shown in the OP, 'rights' and 'entitlements' are two different things.


Good that you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



And this....

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

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get


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.....

Obviously we need to raise the threshold for higher wage earners. Especially since the boom/bust cycle continues to bring more of those higher earners back to the gutter with each predictable but increasingly violent economic crash.

But your analysis also doesn't factor in that the treasury bill that the trust fund is invested in are supposed to earn interest between the time the money is paid in and when it is withdrawn.

The Medicare trust fund is more complicated, but suffice to say some current candidates for the presidency have offered an obvious solution: Single Payer (Medicare for All). You may not approve of it, but it fully funds Medicare, and mutes the us verses them narrative of the current medicare debate.

And the reason for you dodging this.... you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



...is what?

That old debate? There is nothing in the constitution specifically authorizing the government to prohibit a persons free choice of drug. There is no provision for a CIA. Sundry other things either. That debate failed around 1816. Sorry.

Third time: as the Constitution is the law of the land, and the powers of the federal government are specific and enumerated....


Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



What we have here is a perfect example of the Progressive attempt to end America.t

You know very well that there is no such authorization, and that there is no 'right' to government insurance.


Why don't you simply answer as the Progressive that you are: "We don' need no stinkin' Constitution!!!"

As Teddy Roosevelt put it:
‘Well known is TR's outburst, when told the Constitution did not permit the confiscation of private property: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" Less well known is that at one point TR summoned General John M. Schofield, instructing him: "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to a writ from a judge, or anything else except my commands."’ 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. By Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (p. 139) see 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. | David Gordon



You really can't consider yourself an American, can you.

That was never how the constitution was actually interpreted by jurists. It was an arguement advance by a couple of center-left lawyers from Virginia, in order to oppose the Washington administration's more authoritarian positions. And later, when they came to power, in order to enshrine certain provisions they thought proper, directly into the constitution:

"Shall we suppress the impost and give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufactures? On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers. By these operations new channels of communication will be opened between the States; the lines of separation will disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties. Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 6th Annual Message to Congress

Knowledge will set you free.

"That was never how the constitution was actually interpreted by jurists. "


You don't know anything, do you.


There are no 'jurists.'


There are Progressives, and there are constitutionalists.


For your edification, there is this one that Progressives love.


1.Another of those ‘Liberal Lions,’ one of whose ‘achievements’ was to rubber stamp the ability of Progressive government to perform involuntary surgery on citizens they deem….’undesirable.’ In 1911, Progressive racist Democrat Woodrow Wilson signed New Jersey’s forcible sterilization law. In 1927, Progressive Oliver Wendell Holmes invoked the Progressive assault on individuals in favor of the collective, the most basic Progressive doctrine, “ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

1. Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision (Buck v. Bell) written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said : ”The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” It turned out that she was not retarded, as the state had contended. Based on the Buck Decision, more than 60 thousand were operated on across the U.S. as late as the 1970’s. And the opinion was adopted in Germany, where, within a year, some 56 thousand German ‘patients’ had been sterilized.
2. The only vote against the state, in an 8-1 decision was the archconservative and only Catholic on the court, Pierce Butler. “Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, a political conservative.” http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/butler.htm

c. Ultimately, 60,000” Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes."War Against The Weak - Home Page

d. Historian Paul A. Lombardo argued in 1985 that Buck was not "feeble-minded" at all, but that she had been put away to hide her rape, perpetrated by the nephew of her adoptive mother. Buck v. Bell - Wikipedia




Either a judge understands that our memorializing documents envisioned human being with God-given natural rights, or as the Bolsheviks and Progressives thought, were simply pawns that could be made into whatsoever the government wished.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So prescient of you to know where to come for an education.

As shown in the OP, 'rights' and 'entitlements' are two different things.


Good that you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



And this....

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

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get


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.....

Obviously we need to raise the threshold for higher wage earners. Especially since the boom/bust cycle continues to bring more of those higher earners back to the gutter with each predictable but increasingly violent economic crash.

But your analysis also doesn't factor in that the treasury bill that the trust fund is invested in are supposed to earn interest between the time the money is paid in and when it is withdrawn.

The Medicare trust fund is more complicated, but suffice to say some current candidates for the presidency have offered an obvious solution: Single Payer (Medicare for All). You may not approve of it, but it fully funds Medicare, and mutes the us verses them narrative of the current medicare debate.

And the reason for you dodging this.... you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



...is what?

That old debate? There is nothing in the constitution specifically authorizing the government to prohibit a persons free choice of drug. There is no provision for a CIA. Sundry other things either. That debate failed around 1816. Sorry.

Third time: as the Constitution is the law of the land, and the powers of the federal government are specific and enumerated....


Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



What we have here is a perfect example of the Progressive attempt to end America.t

You know very well that there is no such authorization, and that there is no 'right' to government insurance.


Why don't you simply answer as the Progressive that you are: "We don' need no stinkin' Constitution!!!"

As Teddy Roosevelt put it:
‘Well known is TR's outburst, when told the Constitution did not permit the confiscation of private property: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" Less well known is that at one point TR summoned General John M. Schofield, instructing him: "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to a writ from a judge, or anything else except my commands."’ 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. By Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (p. 139) see 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. | David Gordon



You really can't consider yourself an American, can you.

That was never how the constitution was actually interpreted by jurists. It was an arguement advance by a couple of center-left lawyers from Virginia, in order to oppose the Washington administration's more authoritarian positions. And later, when they came to power, in order to enshrine certain provisions they thought proper, directly into the constitution:

"Shall we suppress the impost and give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufactures? On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers. By these operations new channels of communication will be opened between the States; the lines of separation will disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties. Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 6th Annual Message to Congress

Knowledge will set you free.

Jefferson understood the theft of power by judges: Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”


Knowledge appears to have no place in your life.

 

[Agit8r]

Obviously we need to raise the threshold for higher wage earners. Especially since the boom/bust cycle continues to bring more of those higher earners back to the gutter with each predictable but increasingly violent economic crash.

But your analysis also doesn't factor in that the treasury bill that the trust fund is invested in are supposed to earn interest between the time the money is paid in and when it is withdrawn.

The Medicare trust fund is more complicated, but suffice to say some current candidates for the presidency have offered an obvious solution: Single Payer (Medicare for All). You may not approve of it, but it fully funds Medicare, and mutes the us verses them narrative of the current medicare debate.

And the reason for you dodging this.... you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



...is what?

That old debate? There is nothing in the constitution specifically authorizing the government to prohibit a persons free choice of drug. There is no provision for a CIA. Sundry other things either. That debate failed around 1816. Sorry.

Third time: as the Constitution is the law of the land, and the powers of the federal government are specific and enumerated....


Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



What we have here is a perfect example of the Progressive attempt to end America.t

You know very well that there is no such authorization, and that there is no 'right' to government insurance.


Why don't you simply answer as the Progressive that you are: "We don' need no stinkin' Constitution!!!"

As Teddy Roosevelt put it:
‘Well known is TR's outburst, when told the Constitution did not permit the confiscation of private property: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" Less well known is that at one point TR summoned General John M. Schofield, instructing him: "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to a writ from a judge, or anything else except my commands."’ 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. By Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (p. 139) see 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. | David Gordon



You really can't consider yourself an American, can you.

That was never how the constitution was actually interpreted by jurists. It was an arguement advance by a couple of center-left lawyers from Virginia, in order to oppose the Washington administration's more authoritarian positions. And later, when they came to power, in order to enshrine certain provisions they thought proper, directly into the constitution:

"Shall we suppress the impost and give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufactures? On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers. By these operations new channels of communication will be opened between the States; the lines of separation will disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties. Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 6th Annual Message to Congress

Knowledge will set you free.

"That was never how the constitution was actually interpreted by jurists. "


You don't know anything, do you.


There are no 'jurists.'


There are Progressives, and there are constitutionalists.


For your edification, there is this one that Progressives love.


1.Another of those ‘Liberal Lions,’ one of whose ‘achievements’ was to rubber stamp the ability of Progressive government to perform involuntary surgery on citizens they deem….’undesirable.’ In 1911, Progressive racist Democrat Woodrow Wilson signed New Jersey’s forcible sterilization law. In 1927, Progressive Oliver Wendell Holmes invoked the Progressive assault on individuals in favor of the collective, the most basic Progressive doctrine, “ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

1. Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision (Buck v. Bell) written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said : ”The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” It turned out that she was not retarded, as the state had contended. Based on the Buck Decision, more than 60 thousand were operated on across the U.S. as late as the 1970’s. And the opinion was adopted in Germany, where, within a year, some 56 thousand German ‘patients’ had been sterilized.
2. The only vote against the state, in an 8-1 decision was the archconservative and only Catholic on the court, Pierce Butler. “Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, a political conservative.” http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/butler.htm

c. Ultimately, 60,000” Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes."War Against The Weak - Home Page

d. Historian Paul A. Lombardo argued in 1985 that Buck was not "feeble-minded" at all, but that she had been put away to hide her rape, perpetrated by the nephew of her adoptive mother. Buck v. Bell - Wikipedia




Either a judge understands that our memorializing documents envisioned human being with God-given natural rights, or as the Bolsheviks and Progressives thought, were simply pawns that could be made into whatsoever the government wished.

Jurist is the implied qualification for being part of the Judicial Branch of government. That's part of the checks and balances. You can only have so much democratic excess if their are sober thinking people to maintain the rule of law. There was a general understanding that it should closely follow the English legal tradition.

As much as I admire the general philosophy of Jefferson and Madison, their assertions in this matter were populist propaganda, which the latter was a particularly adept practitioner of.

 

[jc456]

8. The premise of the Founders was that liberty pre-exists governments, and said governments are legitimate only when ‘instituted’ to ‘secure’ natural rights.



Progressives have a very different view: rights, for example, to private property and free speech, are ‘spaces of privacy’ [see Timothy Sandefur] that government chooses to ‘carve out and protect’….or not. For Progressives, Liberals, Democrats, you have no such natural rights as specified in the Declaration of Independence.
So, Progressives offer to trade material benefit to those who are willing to give up their birthrights as Americans.



Star Parker writes about the offer made by Progressive Franklin Roosevelt:

There is the passage from Genesis 25:29-34, which accurately describes the cultural shifts that took place during the Great Depression. Read this, and replace "Jacob" with "Uncle Sam," "Esau," with "the People," and "birthright," with "freedom."

29 Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished.

30 He said to Jacob, “Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I’m famished!”

31 Jacob replied, “First sell me your birthright.”

32 “Look, I am about to die,” Esau said. “What good is the birthright to me?”

33 But Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob.

34 Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left.

So Esau despised his birthright.



Agree with Progressives?

Welcome to the gulag.

Progressives WERE the founders

And they believed NOTHING like the progressives believe today. It was the exact opposite. So don't make it sound like you and they are one and the same. The two couldn't be further apart.

No it wasn’t completely different

All men are created equal is still a progressive value
Conservatives believe only white, male, straight Christians are equal

Holy fucking shit!!! What a gem of bigotry you have produced. Thank you.

"All men are created equal" has NEVER been a progressive value. Go look back at the history. Maybe you would not call yourself a progressive it you had.

You just accused MILLIONS of people of holding beliefs without one shred of proof. What an asshole you are.

.

he can't remember that demofks started the kkk. he's truly that stupid!!! and, they still run it, D'OH!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Democrat safety rope

 

[jc456]

Whatever was promised when America was born, it wasn’t a large screen TV, or a pair of Jordan 1 Retro Legends Of Summer….


It was ‘rights.’
And important distinction in understanding America is the difference between ‘rights’ vs ‘entitlements.’



1.“…consider the original rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it should be clear that there are massive differences between those rights and these new ones. The original rights were rights to live by one’s personal efforts without the interference of others, and in particular, without interference by government. That is what the founders of the United States were declaring independence from, after all.”
Rights Versus Entitlements | Steven Yates


The word "rights" is being twisted to mean entitlements, and there is a big difference. ... Entitlements, however, are welfare measures entailing government handouts. Rights are not limited by budget constraints, but entitlements are. So, rights are universal but entitlements are not.” Let’s not confuse entitlements with rights




2. The meaning of the term rights, today, represents what the Founders promised, and what the Left claims in will provide. The most important word in the Declaration of Independence is found here:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …”

The word is ‘secure.’

That means that the most important function of government is to maintain pre-existing rights, not to create them, nor to dispense them. They are known and self-evident prior to the founding of our nation, are inalienable, whether one chooses to use them or not.

These are the rights:

Men are created equal, and enjoy the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.





3. Following the dictates of German philosopher, Hegel, the Left’s theory of government is at odds with that of America’s Founders. The original Americans memorialized in the Declaration of Independence, a specific set of rights that are immutable, inalienable and gifted to every America by, as the Founders put it, ‘Nature’s God, the Creator, the Supreme Judge, and divine Providence.

For the Left, Progressives, Liberals, Communists, Nazis, etc., there is no God, no universality of mankind, no God-given rights.




4. Pre-eminent Progressive, or should I say ‘Hegelian,’ Woodrow Wilson made clear his disdain for the beliefs of America’s founding: "If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface." –

Every totalitarian, Communist, Nazi, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Fascist, all promise every sort of material benefit…but you must give up those ‘inalienable rights’…


BTW….they never keep the promise….check out ‘the Worker’s Paradise.’

Are you japanese?

Speaking of what was promised:

A headright is a legal grant of land to settlers. Headrights are most notable for their role in the expansion of the thirteen British colonies in North America; the Virginia Company of London gave headrights to settlers, and the Plymouth Company followed suit. The headright system was used in several colonies, including Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Most headrights were for 1 to 1,000 acres (4.0 km2) of land, and were given to anyone willing to cross the Atlantic Ocean and help populate the colonies. Headrights were granted to anyone who would pay for the transportation costs of a laborer or enslaved people. These land grants consisted of 50 acres (200,000 m2) for someone newly moving to the area and 100 acres (0.40 km2) for people previously living in the area. By giving the land to the landowning masters the indentured servants had little or no chance to procure their own land. This kept many colonials poor and led to anger between the poor enslaved people and wealthy landowners.

Headright - Wikipedia

I guess heaadrights are rights. Am I right, doofus?

Whatever was promised when America was born, it wasn’t a large screen TV, or a pair of Jordan 1 Retro Legends Of Summer….


It was ‘rights.’
And important distinction in understanding America is the difference between ‘rights’ vs ‘entitlements.’



1.“…consider the original rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it should be clear that there are massive differences between those rights and these new ones. The original rights were rights to live by one’s personal efforts without the interference of others, and in particular, without interference by government. That is what the founders of the United States were declaring independence from, after all.”
Rights Versus Entitlements | Steven Yates


The word "rights" is being twisted to mean entitlements, and there is a big difference. ... Entitlements, however, are welfare measures entailing government handouts. Rights are not limited by budget constraints, but entitlements are. So, rights are universal but entitlements are not.” Let’s not confuse entitlements with rights




2. The meaning of the term rights, today, represents what the Founders promised, and what the Left claims in will provide. The most important word in the Declaration of Independence is found here:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …”

The word is ‘secure.’

That means that the most important function of government is to maintain pre-existing rights, not to create them, nor to dispense them. They are known and self-evident prior to the founding of our nation, are inalienable, whether one chooses to use them or not.

These are the rights:

Men are created equal, and enjoy the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.





3. Following the dictates of German philosopher, Hegel, the Left’s theory of government is at odds with that of America’s Founders. The original Americans memorialized in the Declaration of Independence, a specific set of rights that are immutable, inalienable and gifted to every America by, as the Founders put it, ‘Nature’s God, the Creator, the Supreme Judge, and divine Providence.

For the Left, Progressives, Liberals, Communists, Nazis, etc., there is no God, no universality of mankind, no God-given rights.




4. Pre-eminent Progressive, or should I say ‘Hegelian,’ Woodrow Wilson made clear his disdain for the beliefs of America’s founding: "If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface." –

Every totalitarian, Communist, Nazi, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Fascist, all promise every sort of material benefit…but you must give up those ‘inalienable rights’…


BTW….they never keep the promise….check out ‘the Worker’s Paradise.’

Reposting stupidity doesn't change it to wisdom.

I understand America. You are a child trying to figure it out.

then you should leave. Wisdom passed you by.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Social Security was designed to provide benefits to elderly Americans so that these depression era workers could receive benefits almost immediately

Otherwise, Ida May Brown would have had to wait until 1977 until she could begin to draw benefits

Exactly a Ponzi scheme

 

[jc456]

Whatever was promised when America was born, it wasn’t a large screen TV, or a pair of Jordan 1 Retro Legends Of Summer….


It was ‘rights.’
And important distinction in understanding America is the difference between ‘rights’ vs ‘entitlements.’



1.“…consider the original rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it should be clear that there are massive differences between those rights and these new ones. The original rights were rights to live by one’s personal efforts without the interference of others, and in particular, without interference by government. That is what the founders of the United States were declaring independence from, after all.”
Rights Versus Entitlements | Steven Yates


The word "rights" is being twisted to mean entitlements, and there is a big difference. ... Entitlements, however, are welfare measures entailing government handouts. Rights are not limited by budget constraints, but entitlements are. So, rights are universal but entitlements are not.” Let’s not confuse entitlements with rights




2. The meaning of the term rights, today, represents what the Founders promised, and what the Left claims in will provide. The most important word in the Declaration of Independence is found here:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …”

The word is ‘secure.’

That means that the most important function of government is to maintain pre-existing rights, not to create them, nor to dispense them. They are known and self-evident prior to the founding of our nation, are inalienable, whether one chooses to use them or not.

These are the rights:

Men are created equal, and enjoy the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.





3. Following the dictates of German philosopher, Hegel, the Left’s theory of government is at odds with that of America’s Founders. The original Americans memorialized in the Declaration of Independence, a specific set of rights that are immutable, inalienable and gifted to every America by, as the Founders put it, ‘Nature’s God, the Creator, the Supreme Judge, and divine Providence.

For the Left, Progressives, Liberals, Communists, Nazis, etc., there is no God, no universality of mankind, no God-given rights.




4. Pre-eminent Progressive, or should I say ‘Hegelian,’ Woodrow Wilson made clear his disdain for the beliefs of America’s founding: "If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface." –

Every totalitarian, Communist, Nazi, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Fascist, all promise every sort of material benefit…but you must give up those ‘inalienable rights’…


BTW….they never keep the promise….check out ‘the Worker’s Paradise.’

Are you japanese?

Speaking of what was promised:

A headright is a legal grant of land to settlers. Headrights are most notable for their role in the expansion of the thirteen British colonies in North America; the Virginia Company of London gave headrights to settlers, and the Plymouth Company followed suit. The headright system was used in several colonies, including Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Most headrights were for 1 to 1,000 acres (4.0 km2) of land, and were given to anyone willing to cross the Atlantic Ocean and help populate the colonies. Headrights were granted to anyone who would pay for the transportation costs of a laborer or enslaved people. These land grants consisted of 50 acres (200,000 m2) for someone newly moving to the area and 100 acres (0.40 km2) for people previously living in the area. By giving the land to the landowning masters the indentured servants had little or no chance to procure their own land. This kept many colonials poor and led to anger between the poor enslaved people and wealthy landowners.

Headright - Wikipedia

I guess heaadrights are rights. Am I right, doofus?

Whatever was promised when America was born, it wasn’t a large screen TV, or a pair of Jordan 1 Retro Legends Of Summer….


It was ‘rights.’
And important distinction in understanding America is the difference between ‘rights’ vs ‘entitlements.’



1.“…consider the original rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it should be clear that there are massive differences between those rights and these new ones. The original rights were rights to live by one’s personal efforts without the interference of others, and in particular, without interference by government. That is what the founders of the United States were declaring independence from, after all.”
Rights Versus Entitlements | Steven Yates


The word "rights" is being twisted to mean entitlements, and there is a big difference. ... Entitlements, however, are welfare measures entailing government handouts. Rights are not limited by budget constraints, but entitlements are. So, rights are universal but entitlements are not.” Let’s not confuse entitlements with rights




2. The meaning of the term rights, today, represents what the Founders promised, and what the Left claims in will provide. The most important word in the Declaration of Independence is found here:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …”

The word is ‘secure.’

That means that the most important function of government is to maintain pre-existing rights, not to create them, nor to dispense them. They are known and self-evident prior to the founding of our nation, are inalienable, whether one chooses to use them or not.

These are the rights:

Men are created equal, and enjoy the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.





3. Following the dictates of German philosopher, Hegel, the Left’s theory of government is at odds with that of America’s Founders. The original Americans memorialized in the Declaration of Independence, a specific set of rights that are immutable, inalienable and gifted to every America by, as the Founders put it, ‘Nature’s God, the Creator, the Supreme Judge, and divine Providence.

For the Left, Progressives, Liberals, Communists, Nazis, etc., there is no God, no universality of mankind, no God-given rights.




4. Pre-eminent Progressive, or should I say ‘Hegelian,’ Woodrow Wilson made clear his disdain for the beliefs of America’s founding: "If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface." –

Every totalitarian, Communist, Nazi, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Fascist, all promise every sort of material benefit…but you must give up those ‘inalienable rights’…


BTW….they never keep the promise….check out ‘the Worker’s Paradise.’

Reposting stupidity doesn't change it to wisdom.

I understand America. You are a child trying to figure it out.

"I understand America."

Let's check.


What is the difference between the conservative's view of 'rights' and that of Progressives,Liberals, Democrats?


It's an open book test....take your time.



Just admit you know less than nothing so I don't have to keep embarrassing you.

Learn how America has operated instead of the conservative lie, you internalized racism afflicted idiot.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

You have embarrassed yourself. So when you can figure out that you are repeating right wing conservative propaganda, let me know.

the fact you have no idea what that three fifths represented is funny as shit. Who won the war? do you even know?

 

[PoliticalChic]

And the reason for you dodging this.... you bring up Social Security....a from of insurance.

Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



...is what?

That old debate? There is nothing in the constitution specifically authorizing the government to prohibit a persons free choice of drug. There is no provision for a CIA. Sundry other things either. That debate failed around 1816. Sorry.

Third time: as the Constitution is the law of the land, and the powers of the federal government are specific and enumerated....


Can you find a place in article 1, section 8 of the law of the land that allows the government to dun one citizen to provide insurance for another?



What we have here is a perfect example of the Progressive attempt to end America.t

You know very well that there is no such authorization, and that there is no 'right' to government insurance.


Why don't you simply answer as the Progressive that you are: "We don' need no stinkin' Constitution!!!"

As Teddy Roosevelt put it:
‘Well known is TR's outburst, when told the Constitution did not permit the confiscation of private property: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" Less well known is that at one point TR summoned General John M. Schofield, instructing him: "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to a writ from a judge, or anything else except my commands."’ 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. By Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (p. 139) see 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. | David Gordon



You really can't consider yourself an American, can you.

That was never how the constitution was actually interpreted by jurists. It was an arguement advance by a couple of center-left lawyers from Virginia, in order to oppose the Washington administration's more authoritarian positions. And later, when they came to power, in order to enshrine certain provisions they thought proper, directly into the constitution:

"Shall we suppress the impost and give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufactures? On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers. By these operations new channels of communication will be opened between the States; the lines of separation will disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties. Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 6th Annual Message to Congress

Knowledge will set you free.

"That was never how the constitution was actually interpreted by jurists. "


You don't know anything, do you.


There are no 'jurists.'


There are Progressives, and there are constitutionalists.


For your edification, there is this one that Progressives love.


1.Another of those ‘Liberal Lions,’ one of whose ‘achievements’ was to rubber stamp the ability of Progressive government to perform involuntary surgery on citizens they deem….’undesirable.’ In 1911, Progressive racist Democrat Woodrow Wilson signed New Jersey’s forcible sterilization law. In 1927, Progressive Oliver Wendell Holmes invoked the Progressive assault on individuals in favor of the collective, the most basic Progressive doctrine, “ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

1. Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision (Buck v. Bell) written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said : ”The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” It turned out that she was not retarded, as the state had contended. Based on the Buck Decision, more than 60 thousand were operated on across the U.S. as late as the 1970’s. And the opinion was adopted in Germany, where, within a year, some 56 thousand German ‘patients’ had been sterilized.
2. The only vote against the state, in an 8-1 decision was the archconservative and only Catholic on the court, Pierce Butler. “Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, a political conservative.” http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/butler.htm

c. Ultimately, 60,000” Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes."War Against The Weak - Home Page

d. Historian Paul A. Lombardo argued in 1985 that Buck was not "feeble-minded" at all, but that she had been put away to hide her rape, perpetrated by the nephew of her adoptive mother. Buck v. Bell - Wikipedia




Either a judge understands that our memorializing documents envisioned human being with God-given natural rights, or as the Bolsheviks and Progressives thought, were simply pawns that could be made into whatsoever the government wished.

Jurist is the implied qualification for being part of the Judicial Branch of government. That's part of the checks and balances. You can only have so much democratic excess if their are sober thinking people to maintain the rule of law. There was a general understanding that it should closely follow the English legal tradition.

As much as I admire the general philosophy of Jefferson and Madison, their assertions in this matter were populist propaganda, which the latter was a particularly adept practitioner of.

Gads, you're a dunce.


"Jurist is the implied qualification for being part of the Judicial Branch of government. That's part of the checks and balances."

If a fake is a Progressive,....he doesn't believe in checks and balances.

In his 1890 essay, “Leaders of Men,” Wilson explained that a “true leader” uses the masses like “tools.” He must inflame their passions with little heed for the facts. “Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.” “No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle,” wrote Wilson, attacking the very individual rights that have made America great.

He rejected the principles of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” that are the foundation of American government: “Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand….” wrote Wilson in The State.



The fav 'jurist' of Progressives said his job was to rubber-stamp whatever government wished.


1. In Holmes, we see the danger of Progressives on the Supreme Court, not finding their mission to support the individual’s God-given natural rights, but, rather, the collective, the majority, as expressed by government. Holmes explained his desire to rubber-stamp government endeavors, thus: “I always say, as you know, that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It's my job.”


Haven't you ever .....EVER....read a book??????

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. The premise of the Founders was that liberty pre-exists governments, and said governments are legitimate only when ‘instituted’ to ‘secure’ natural rights.



Progressives have a very different view: rights, for example, to private property and free speech, are ‘spaces of privacy’ [see Timothy Sandefur] that government chooses to ‘carve out and protect’….or not. For Progressives, Liberals, Democrats, you have no such natural rights as specified in the Declaration of Independence.
So, Progressives offer to trade material benefit to those who are willing to give up their birthrights as Americans.



Star Parker writes about the offer made by Progressive Franklin Roosevelt:

There is the passage from Genesis 25:29-34, which accurately describes the cultural shifts that took place during the Great Depression. Read this, and replace "Jacob" with "Uncle Sam," "Esau," with "the People," and "birthright," with "freedom."

29 Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished.

30 He said to Jacob, “Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I’m famished!”

31 Jacob replied, “First sell me your birthright.”

32 “Look, I am about to die,” Esau said. “What good is the birthright to me?”

33 But Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob.

34 Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left.

So Esau despised his birthright.



Agree with Progressives?

Welcome to the gulag.

Progressives WERE the founders

And they believed NOTHING like the progressives believe today. It was the exact opposite. So don't make it sound like you and they are one and the same. The two couldn't be further apart.

No it wasn’t completely different

All men are created equal is still a progressive value
Conservatives believe only white, male, straight Christians are equal

Holy fucking shit!!! What a gem of bigotry you have produced. Thank you.

"All men are created equal" has NEVER been a progressive value. Go look back at the history. Maybe you would not call yourself a progressive it you had.

You just accused MILLIONS of people of holding beliefs without one shred of proof. What an asshole you are.

.

he can't remember that demofks started the kkk. he's truly that stupid!!! and, they still run it, D'OH!

It's not stupidity.

What's scary is that government school turns out tons of his type that refuse to think or admit the truth.


And they vote.