Trump's tax plan.....You judge!

[JoeNormal]

That's exactly right and the people who think the SS trust fund has been raided do not understand this.

Well, since it's what I said, obviously I do understand it.

That was not Gore's plan that he ever presented, so what I didn't know is what I asked you, how was Gore going to put it in a lock box?That wasn't his plan

It's still considered a trust fund.
Trust Fund Data

A trust fund with no assets, a distinction without a difference

If you had a trust fund, would you put the assets in a safe deposit box or invest them?

Invest them. What does that have to do with the discussion? Gore never proposed either since he never proposed having actual assets

The funds which people who want to believe that SS was plundered are invested in various ways. That doesn't mean they have somehow evaporated.

 

[edthecynic]

Apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you!

The court said Congress had the power to modify the rules, which it has done several times -- such as gradually raising the full retirement age over time.

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

TO ENGRAFT UPON THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM A CONCEPT OF "ACCRUED
PROPERTY RIGHTS" WOULD DEPRIVE IT OF THE FLEXIBILITY AND BOLDNESS IN
ADJUSTMENT TO EVER-CHANGING CONDITIONS WHICH IT DEMANDS. SEE
WOLLENBERG, VESTED RIGHTS IN SOCIAL-SECURITY BENEFITS, 37 ORE. L. REV.
299, 359. IT WAS DOUBTLESS OUT OF AN AWARENESS OF THE NEED FOR SUCH
FLEXIBILITY THAT CONGRESS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ACT, AND HAS SINCE
RETAINED, A CLAUSE EXPRESSLY RESERVING TO IT "THE RIGHT TO ALTER,
AMEND, OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION" OF THE ACT. SEC. 1104, 49 STAT. 648,
42 U.S.C. SEC. 1304. THAT PROVISION MAKES EXPRESS WHAT IS IMPLICIT IN
THE INSTITUTIONAL NEEDS OF THE PROGRAM. SEE ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 83D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 920
921. IT WAS PURSUANT TO THAT PROVISION THAT SEC. 202(N) WAS ENACTED.

WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT A PERSON COVERED BY THE ACT HAS NOT SUCH A
RIGHT IN BENEFIT PAYMENTS AS WOULD MAKE EVERY DEFEASANCE OF "ACCRUED"
INTERESTS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.

Nowhere does that quote say that "congress" has to provide due process. It can't, that makes no sense. Due process is a judicial process, this doesn't say otherwise

Well, since that is an interpretation YOU made up, why should it?????

What it says is Congress can alter or repeal the SS Act so long as it doesn't do it in a vague or arbitrary manor, which would violate due process. As long as the changes made by Congress apply equally to all citizens then the changes do not violate due process.

 

[kaz]

Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one

Apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you!

The court said Congress had the power to modify the rules, which it has done several times -- such as gradually raising the full retirement age over time.

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

And why aren't you googling Flemming V Nestor? Lazy or too stupid to understand what you google?

For example:
From your own link:
"The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses more broadly because these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."

Clearly The SCOTUS ruling in Flemming V Nestor is saying that in any legislation by Congress on restricting or repealing SS benefits must conform to due process by applying equally to all citizens.

OK, I'll explain it one last time. What they are saying is that due process cannot be deprived without the legislature authorizing it. The legislature creates the rules (subject to the Constitution). Determining whether you violated those rules (subject to the Constitution) is a judicial process referred to as "due process."

Let's say Congress passes a rule saying you have to pay $10 to enter a park. You park outside and walk in. You get a ticket. You fight it arguing you didn't drive in a car. The process to determine your innocence or guilt is "due process" which happens in the courts, not the congress. The courts apply due process according to the rules the legislature set up (subject to the Constitution).

None of this says congress can't change social security to create a trust fund. I'm not explaining it again

 

[JoeNormal]

Read my entire post. The last paragraph was-

"How does collecting more taxes from the rich increase the income of the poor? Clearly it does not. We need to address the income gap!"

So wipe your tears, pull your head out of your ass, and offer something meaningful addressing the real issue.

BuckToothMoron, we have bills to pay. Bills that include assistance to the poor and elderly like food stamps, education, medical coverage etc.

Given that, we have to decide how to distribute that burden in a way that makes most sense and is most fair, as vague as that term is.

I understand we have bills to pay. And I also understand we don't pay them now since our debt is increasing. The facts are that the top 20% have continued to pay a higher and higher % of the tax burden while the bottom 50% pay less and less. There is a clear disconnect between taxes and the wealth/income gap. In other words, collecting more taxes from the top does not help the bottom earn more.

I don't know the solution, but we need to examine something other than tax brackets and rates. The wealth gap is higher now than it was just before the Great Depression, and has been increasing since the 1970's. This wealth gap is not a good thing, and it transcends party lines.

They pay higher and higher % of total taxes paid because they make more, while gains were small for everyone else.

When you look at actual % of income taxation they don't pay more than middle class when overall taxation is considered:

The one tax graph you really need to know

Watch these facts get ignored again by the people who want to believe the wealthy pay too much.

What the wealthy pay and if it is too little or too much is not what we should be focused on. Let's assume for a moment that you taxed the wealthy at 99% of their income and that constitute 99% of all taxes collected. How does that help the bottom 50% who already don't pay taxes? We need to look at the INCOME GAP. Taxing the shit out of the wealthy does not increase income for the bottom 50%.

It funds a safety net for them but I will agree with you that the income gap is way too large. That's why I favor a system in which the highest paid members of a corporation can be paid a maximum of some factor of the average wage in their organizations. That factor is 20x in Japan. Could be some other factor here but not the 300x that it is now.

 

[edthecynic]

Well, since it's what I said, obviously I do understand it.

That was not Gore's plan that he ever presented, so what I didn't know is what I asked you, how was Gore going to put it in a lock box?That wasn't his plan

It's still considered a trust fund.
Trust Fund Data

A trust fund with no assets, a distinction without a difference

If you had a trust fund, would you put the assets in a safe deposit box or invest them?

Invest them. What does that have to do with the discussion? Gore never proposed either since he never proposed having actual assets

The funds which people who want to believe that SS was plundered are invested in various ways. That doesn't mean they have somehow evaporated.

The SS surplus funds evaporate as soon as Trump and the GOP make SS benefits a strict "pay as you go" program, paying out each year no more than taken in each year.

 

[kaz]

Well, since it's what I said, obviously I do understand it.

That was not Gore's plan that he ever presented, so what I didn't know is what I asked you, how was Gore going to put it in a lock box?That wasn't his plan

It's still considered a trust fund.
Trust Fund Data

A trust fund with no assets, a distinction without a difference

If you had a trust fund, would you put the assets in a safe deposit box or invest them?

Invest them. What does that have to do with the discussion? Gore never proposed either since he never proposed having actual assets

The funds which people who want to believe that SS was plundered are invested in various ways. That doesn't mean they have somehow evaporated.

It isn't invested in any way, it's spent as it comes in. You're just making that up

 

[kaz]

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

TO ENGRAFT UPON THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM A CONCEPT OF "ACCRUED
PROPERTY RIGHTS" WOULD DEPRIVE IT OF THE FLEXIBILITY AND BOLDNESS IN
ADJUSTMENT TO EVER-CHANGING CONDITIONS WHICH IT DEMANDS. SEE
WOLLENBERG, VESTED RIGHTS IN SOCIAL-SECURITY BENEFITS, 37 ORE. L. REV.
299, 359. IT WAS DOUBTLESS OUT OF AN AWARENESS OF THE NEED FOR SUCH
FLEXIBILITY THAT CONGRESS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ACT, AND HAS SINCE
RETAINED, A CLAUSE EXPRESSLY RESERVING TO IT "THE RIGHT TO ALTER,
AMEND, OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION" OF THE ACT. SEC. 1104, 49 STAT. 648,
42 U.S.C. SEC. 1304. THAT PROVISION MAKES EXPRESS WHAT IS IMPLICIT IN
THE INSTITUTIONAL NEEDS OF THE PROGRAM. SEE ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 83D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 920
921. IT WAS PURSUANT TO THAT PROVISION THAT SEC. 202(N) WAS ENACTED.

WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT A PERSON COVERED BY THE ACT HAS NOT SUCH A
RIGHT IN BENEFIT PAYMENTS AS WOULD MAKE EVERY DEFEASANCE OF "ACCRUED"
INTERESTS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.

Nowhere does that quote say that "congress" has to provide due process. It can't, that makes no sense. Due process is a judicial process, this doesn't say otherwise

Well, since that is an interpretation YOU made up, why should it?????

What it says is Congress can alter or repeal the SS Act so long as it doesn't do it in a vague or arbitrary manor, which would violate due process. As long as the changes made by Congress apply equally to all citizens then the changes do not violate due process.

I made up that due process is a judicial process? No, I sure didn't ...

 

[kaz]

It's still considered a trust fund.
Trust Fund Data

A trust fund with no assets, a distinction without a difference

If you had a trust fund, would you put the assets in a safe deposit box or invest them?

Invest them. What does that have to do with the discussion? Gore never proposed either since he never proposed having actual assets

The funds which people who want to believe that SS was plundered are invested in various ways. That doesn't mean they have somehow evaporated.

The SS surplus funds evaporate as soon as Trump and the GOP make SS benefits a strict "pay as you go" program, paying out each year no more than taken in each year.

Has nothing to do with the discussion

 

[JoeNormal]

It's still considered a trust fund.
Trust Fund Data

A trust fund with no assets, a distinction without a difference

If you had a trust fund, would you put the assets in a safe deposit box or invest them?

Invest them. What does that have to do with the discussion? Gore never proposed either since he never proposed having actual assets

The funds which people who want to believe that SS was plundered are invested in various ways. That doesn't mean they have somehow evaporated.

The SS surplus funds evaporate as soon as Trump and the GOP make SS benefits a strict "pay as you go" program, paying out each year no more than taken in each year.

I think the republicans might discover the 'third rail' effect if that happens - and I don't just mean the death of their political careers.

 

[kaz]

A trust fund with no assets, a distinction without a difference

If you had a trust fund, would you put the assets in a safe deposit box or invest them?

Invest them. What does that have to do with the discussion? Gore never proposed either since he never proposed having actual assets

The funds which people who want to believe that SS was plundered are invested in various ways. That doesn't mean they have somehow evaporated.

The SS surplus funds evaporate as soon as Trump and the GOP make SS benefits a strict "pay as you go" program, paying out each year no more than taken in each year.

I think the republicans might discover the 'third rail' effect if that happens - and I don't just mean the death of their political careers.

I didn't say anything about "the Republicans." The world is just a partisan arena to you people. You both suck, that's why I don't vote for either of you

 

[edthecynic]

Apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you!

The court said Congress had the power to modify the rules, which it has done several times -- such as gradually raising the full retirement age over time.

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

And why aren't you googling Flemming V Nestor? Lazy or too stupid to understand what you google?

For example:
From your own link:
"The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses more broadly because these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."

Clearly The SCOTUS ruling in Flemming V Nestor is saying that in any legislation by Congress on restricting or repealing SS benefits must conform to due process by applying equally to all citizens.

OK, I'll explain it one last time. What they are saying is that due process cannot be deprived without the legislature authorizing it. The legislature creates the rules (subject to the Constitution). Determining whether you violated those rules (subject to the Constitution) is a judicial process referred to as "due process."

Let's say Congress passes a rule saying you have to pay $10 to enter a park. You park outside and walk in. You get a ticket. You fight it arguing you didn't drive in a car. The process to determine your innocence or guilt is "due process" which happens in the courts, not the congress. The courts apply due process according to the rules the legislature set up (subject to the Constitution).

None of this says congress can't change social security to create a trust fund. I'm not explaining it again

You have yet to "explain" anything. You fabricated a load of bullshit and then pontificated the same bullshit over and over.

Congress conforms to due process when it applies the law equally to all citizens is what the SCOTUS was saying.

 

[JoeNormal]

It's still considered a trust fund.
Trust Fund Data

A trust fund with no assets, a distinction without a difference

If you had a trust fund, would you put the assets in a safe deposit box or invest them?

Invest them. What does that have to do with the discussion? Gore never proposed either since he never proposed having actual assets

The funds which people who want to believe that SS was plundered are invested in various ways. That doesn't mean they have somehow evaporated.

It isn't invested in any way, it's spent as it comes in. You're just making that up

It was explained to me on this board a while back by someone who knows a lot more about it than you do.

 

[kaz]

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

And why aren't you googling Flemming V Nestor? Lazy or too stupid to understand what you google?

For example:
From your own link:
"The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses more broadly because these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."

Clearly The SCOTUS ruling in Flemming V Nestor is saying that in any legislation by Congress on restricting or repealing SS benefits must conform to due process by applying equally to all citizens.

OK, I'll explain it one last time. What they are saying is that due process cannot be deprived without the legislature authorizing it. The legislature creates the rules (subject to the Constitution). Determining whether you violated those rules (subject to the Constitution) is a judicial process referred to as "due process."

Let's say Congress passes a rule saying you have to pay $10 to enter a park. You park outside and walk in. You get a ticket. You fight it arguing you didn't drive in a car. The process to determine your innocence or guilt is "due process" which happens in the courts, not the congress. The courts apply due process according to the rules the legislature set up (subject to the Constitution).

None of this says congress can't change social security to create a trust fund. I'm not explaining it again

You have yet to "explain" anything. You fabricated a load of bullshit and then pontificated the same bullshit over and over.

Congress conforms to due process when it applies the law equally to all citizens is what the SCOTUS was saying.

Non-sequitur. Due process is a judicial process. I even gave you a link that explains "due process" moron

 

[JoeNormal]

If you had a trust fund, would you put the assets in a safe deposit box or invest them?

Invest them. What does that have to do with the discussion? Gore never proposed either since he never proposed having actual assets

The funds which people who want to believe that SS was plundered are invested in various ways. That doesn't mean they have somehow evaporated.

The SS surplus funds evaporate as soon as Trump and the GOP make SS benefits a strict "pay as you go" program, paying out each year no more than taken in each year.

I think the republicans might discover the 'third rail' effect if that happens - and I don't just mean the death of their political careers.

I didn't say anything about "the Republicans." The world is just a partisan arena to you people. You both suck, that's why I don't vote for either of you

I'll admit there's not a lot of difference between the two major parties but it does always seem to be the republicans who want to threaten taking away benefits that people have contributed to all their lives.

 

[AntonToo]

I understand we have bills to pay. And I also understand we don't pay them now since our debt is increasing. The facts are that the top 20% have continued to pay a higher and higher % of the tax burden while the bottom 50% pay less and less. There is a clear disconnect between taxes and the wealth/income gap. In other words, collecting more taxes from the top does not help the bottom earn more.

I don't know the solution, but we need to examine something other than tax brackets and rates. The wealth gap is higher now than it was just before the Great Depression, and has been increasing since the 1970's. This wealth gap is not a good thing, and it transcends party lines.

They pay higher and higher % of total taxes paid because they make more, while gains were small for everyone else.

When you look at actual % of income taxation they don't pay more than middle class when overall taxation is considered:

The one tax graph you really need to know

Watch these facts get ignored again by the people who want to believe the wealthy pay too much.

What the wealthy pay and if it is too little or too much is not what we should be focused on. Let's assume for a moment that you taxed the wealthy at 99% of their income and that constitute 99% of all taxes collected. How does that help the bottom 50% who already don't pay taxes? We need to look at the INCOME GAP. Taxing the shit out of the wealthy does not increase income for the bottom 50%.

....but I already explained that bills need to be paid and all that stuff, you are back at your original argument as if nothing happened.

The point of taxing rich is not that it increases anyone's salary(on the contrary it may even shrink it some), the point is to pay the bills (portion of which helps the poor) that we increasingly cover less and less of due to under-taxing and over-spending.


Let's go at it from the other direction - I will now use your very logic to say that we should change tax code to not tax any income above $100,000. That would help or at least not hurt the poor, right? Sounds sane?

A little math lesson then I will make my statement.
If you could spend 1 dollar a second, how long would it take you to spend 1 trillion dollars?
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minutes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365 = $3,153,600 a year. That is over 3 million dollars a year, how many people spend that much?
$3,153,600 x 1000 = 3,153,600,000. That is over 3 billion dollars for a 1000 years, still not 1 trillion dollars.
$3,153,600,000 x 31.71 = $1,000,000,000,000 That is just over 31,710 years to spend 1 trillion dollars.

So the government takes in over 3.2 trillion dollars and spends almost 3.9 trillion dollars in 1 year. Why doesn't the government not spend as much by cutting 1/2 of the budget that most goes to entitlements and those agencies that support those entitlements. If you have a "FAIR" flat tax, everyone pays their fair share, don't need the IRS, and when there is less government there is more money for people who work to spend and create jobs, as this isn't trickle down economics(Liberal term) but supply side economics. See a need, fill a need.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Cool story, doesn't answer anything of what I said.

Yes we can cut taxes and cut spending to make up for it. GO FOR IT, make the steep spending cuts. Do that, get the surplus, then cut taxes, NO PROBLEM.

I won't agree with it because there is no way in hell to cut that much without cutting out essential government spending, but I'll have no problem saying that such plan would at least be fiscally responsible, unlike what is currently on Republican agenda.

 

[edthecynic]

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

TO ENGRAFT UPON THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM A CONCEPT OF "ACCRUED
PROPERTY RIGHTS" WOULD DEPRIVE IT OF THE FLEXIBILITY AND BOLDNESS IN
ADJUSTMENT TO EVER-CHANGING CONDITIONS WHICH IT DEMANDS. SEE
WOLLENBERG, VESTED RIGHTS IN SOCIAL-SECURITY BENEFITS, 37 ORE. L. REV.
299, 359. IT WAS DOUBTLESS OUT OF AN AWARENESS OF THE NEED FOR SUCH
FLEXIBILITY THAT CONGRESS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ACT, AND HAS SINCE
RETAINED, A CLAUSE EXPRESSLY RESERVING TO IT "THE RIGHT TO ALTER,
AMEND, OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION" OF THE ACT. SEC. 1104, 49 STAT. 648,
42 U.S.C. SEC. 1304. THAT PROVISION MAKES EXPRESS WHAT IS IMPLICIT IN
THE INSTITUTIONAL NEEDS OF THE PROGRAM. SEE ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 83D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 920
921. IT WAS PURSUANT TO THAT PROVISION THAT SEC. 202(N) WAS ENACTED.

WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT A PERSON COVERED BY THE ACT HAS NOT SUCH A
RIGHT IN BENEFIT PAYMENTS AS WOULD MAKE EVERY DEFEASANCE OF "ACCRUED"
INTERESTS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.

Nowhere does that quote say that "congress" has to provide due process. It can't, that makes no sense. Due process is a judicial process, this doesn't say otherwise

Well, since that is an interpretation YOU made up, why should it?????

What it says is Congress can alter or repeal the SS Act so long as it doesn't do it in a vague or arbitrary manor, which would violate due process. As long as the changes made by Congress apply equally to all citizens then the changes do not violate due process.

I made up that due process is a judicial process? No, I sure didn't ...

You made up that that was what SCOTUS was saying in Flemming V Nestor. SCOTUS ruled beneficiaries could be denied benefits for any reason if Congress passed a law making it so, as long as the change wasn’t arbitrary. The court said Congress had the power to modify the rules, which it has done several times -- such as gradually raising the full retirement age over time. Your own Wiki link says this:
"Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law."

 

[kaz]

A trust fund with no assets, a distinction without a difference

If you had a trust fund, would you put the assets in a safe deposit box or invest them?

Invest them. What does that have to do with the discussion? Gore never proposed either since he never proposed having actual assets

The funds which people who want to believe that SS was plundered are invested in various ways. That doesn't mean they have somehow evaporated.

It isn't invested in any way, it's spent as it comes in. You're just making that up

It was explained to me on this board a while back by someone who knows a lot more about it than you do.

Wow, a moron explained it to an idiot. Actually congress passed a law preventing any money from being saved. It must all go into the general fund. Loaning yourself money isn't an asset. Google can cure your ignorance. If any of the money goes anywhere else, it's illegal. So I wouldn't listen to the genius who claimed social security is breaking the law and making other investments

 

[kaz]

Invest them. What does that have to do with the discussion? Gore never proposed either since he never proposed having actual assets

The funds which people who want to believe that SS was plundered are invested in various ways. That doesn't mean they have somehow evaporated.

The SS surplus funds evaporate as soon as Trump and the GOP make SS benefits a strict "pay as you go" program, paying out each year no more than taken in each year.

I think the republicans might discover the 'third rail' effect if that happens - and I don't just mean the death of their political careers.

I didn't say anything about "the Republicans." The world is just a partisan arena to you people. You both suck, that's why I don't vote for either of you

I'll admit there's not a lot of difference between the two major parties but it does always seem to be the republicans who want to threaten taking away benefits that people have contributed to all their lives.

People didn't contribute anything, they paid taxes and it was spent as it came in like every other tax. And both parties did it to them

 

[edthecynic]

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

And why aren't you googling Flemming V Nestor? Lazy or too stupid to understand what you google?

For example:
From your own link:
"The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses more broadly because these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."

Clearly The SCOTUS ruling in Flemming V Nestor is saying that in any legislation by Congress on restricting or repealing SS benefits must conform to due process by applying equally to all citizens.

OK, I'll explain it one last time. What they are saying is that due process cannot be deprived without the legislature authorizing it. The legislature creates the rules (subject to the Constitution). Determining whether you violated those rules (subject to the Constitution) is a judicial process referred to as "due process."

Let's say Congress passes a rule saying you have to pay $10 to enter a park. You park outside and walk in. You get a ticket. You fight it arguing you didn't drive in a car. The process to determine your innocence or guilt is "due process" which happens in the courts, not the congress. The courts apply due process according to the rules the legislature set up (subject to the Constitution).

None of this says congress can't change social security to create a trust fund. I'm not explaining it again

You have yet to "explain" anything. You fabricated a load of bullshit and then pontificated the same bullshit over and over.

Congress conforms to due process when it applies the law equally to all citizens is what the SCOTUS was saying.

Non-sequitur. Due process is a judicial process. I even gave you a link that explains "due process" moron

Yeah a link you never read!

 

[hunarcy]

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

According to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Trump’s latest proposals would cut taxes by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with 47% of all cuts in 2017 going to the top 1%.

The tax cuts that Trump is now proposing are smaller than the $9.5 trillion in cuts he floated last year, but are also more tilted in favor of the wealthy.

Under Trump’s new plan, every income group would still get tax cuts, but upper income households would receive the most relief, not only in dollars, but as a percentage of income.

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

Let's be real. Who else is paying taxes? When the bottom 50% effectively pay no income taxes, they can't be given a tax cut...and since the top 1% pay 37.8% of the total income tax, they probably deserve a cut.