What Memorial Day means to NY Times readers
Cortillaen sends us a link to an article in the New York Times which highlights the saddest images it can as their Memorial Day weekend remembrance, One image is probably one you’re familiar with – Katherine Cathey, camped out overnight by the remains of her husband LT James Cathey on the night before his burial. Cortillaen warned me in his eamil to not read the comments, but, I couldn’t help it;
At the end of the article you ask an incredibly important question: What can I do?
What can we do? We can push our state and federal representatives to more heavily subsidize higher education so that we can have a much larger percent of the population with fully developed intellects.
[…]
Is there any doubt that with a more educated, more discerning, more deliberative voting population that George W. Bush would have ever been elected? A man that lacked the most essential quality that is necessary in United States President, i.e., intellectual curiosity.
An educated people would have more broadly pinpointed his lack of intellectual curiosity and therefore would have concluded that he cannot handle the nuance of critical decisions because he lacks the self-derived onus to investigate these nuances. The Iraq war would never have happened and future wars can likewise be avoided. That is what we can do.
Did you resist paying your taxes to fund these wars? Did you demonstrate, speak out, write to your political leaders, write letters to the editor? Did you, and do you, do everything you can to prevent needless wars? If the answer is yes, I salute you.
The Iraq war is especially tragic, started by a bunch of psychopaths who do what psychopaths do: lie, self-serve, and enjoy the spectacle of the death and destruction they cause.
Read Robert Hare’s book on psychopaths, Without Conscience, to understand how the Iraq war happened, how Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld came to power, how Little George was so manipulated; how dangerous Romney is.
Nowadays, is the decision to enter the military merely and solely an economic one? If so, one will surely never see the top 1% submit to military service and go in harm’s way.
What “American values” are worthy of this sacrifice? Do those values include “maximization of shareholder value”?
Is it to be regretted that “corporate persons” are unable to go in harm’s way on behalf of their (financial) interests like flesh-and-blood human “resources” and “capital”?
I remember the old anti-war phrase from the 60’s: “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” It’s a good question, isn’t it? Bush and Blair got America involved in a senseless war based on lies. There wasn’t even a draft in place. Why do men so willingly march off to kill on command in behalf of the Anglo-American oil cartel? Very sad indeed.
He was sent to his death (by men who evaded military service themselves everyone of them) on the otherside of the world to kill poor people and farmers.
Ask his widow what she thinks of the war
Every solider, in every war, who is not sent because s/he is a literal slave, goes because s/he chose to go. If the soldiers would refuse to fight, we would have no war. War happens because people think war is exciting and noble, or necessary, or inevitable.
The USA had no business going to war in Iraq and shouldn’t be in Afghanistan. The POTUS at the time lied, straight forwardly and stupidly, lied. I knew it then and so did many of my friends. Nonetheless, many people, men and women, chose to go to these places and fight.
And then they wonder why there’s a gap between the military and the people they’re defending in this country.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Dumbass Bullshit
@ 47Insipid, would you please recite your citation that supports your claim, “SS and Medicare DO operate at a surplus”? And please don’t go to the DU or PuffHo or some other libtatd rag.
This address will take you an USGovt site that explainss that both programs operate at deficits.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
I think what you don’t recognize is that at the time theConstitution was written, the concept of a government provided ” safety net” wasn’t even an idea. People were expected to fend for themselves and take care of their elderly family members. SS and welfare are both programs of the ’30s, the roots of Medicare appeared in the ’20s, oh and that’s the 20th century not the 18th.
@48- No one “stuck a gun” to my mothers head. She has voted in every election since the early 50s. She voted for Truman, Kennedy and Johnson and would of voted for FDR if she could. She’s gladly paid into SS for 50 years. In fact most people happily pay into it as it still remains the most popular federal program. If you don’t want to pay into it, tough shit. I didn’t want to pay for any of Bush’s wars. The price you pay for living in a democracy is that sometimes you pay for things you don’t want.
I’m aware of the 10th amendment. You don’t seem to be aware of the General Welfare Clause or the Necessary and proper clause.
While i do loathe second amendment arguments the reason for the second amendment is to maintain a well regulated militia. The founders were afraid that the Federal Government would strangle the militia by just not arming it. I was part of the National Guard for 10 years, i can assure you it was very well armed.
That being said, i’m all for you all having guns, especially if it produces more heart warming stories like this one:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981297409
I wonder if they pried the gun from his cold dead hand?
Insipid, you still seem not to understand the limitations of the scope of the Federal Government. The General Welfare clause does not equate to an involuntary financial ‘safety net’, unless you’re willing to utterly discard the notion of individual liberty.
Which by all appearances, you are.
“In fact most people happily pay into it as it still remains the most popular federal program.”
Oh Baloney-not a one of us has the slightest choice in the matter so it can hardly be said that we “happily” do anything of the sort.
Were the guardsman in your unit responsible for providing their own arms? If so, I think you were possibly in this unit http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/12/chinese-national-accused-army-recruiting-scam/
As to the rest of your loathesome screed, what a pathetic hateful little man (I use the term loosely) you are.
I assume you’re referring to my claim that SS runs at a surplus?
http://www.nasi.org/research/2011/social-security-finances-findings-2011-trustees-report
As far as “freedom” goes you have it. The problem isn’t that you don’t have freedom, it’s that you lose elections when you put SS up for a vote. The ones that are infringing on freedom are the Republicans as they try and take away voting rights from minorities and students.
@51: That’s NOT what your source says. Here’s what your source actually says:
“The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086. ”
That means that including interest SS STILL takes in more than it lays out. And it will continue to do so until 2020. So according to your own source SS is solvent until 2033 which is the year the reserves run out. Is it something we should be concerned with? Yes. But should we use this as an excuse to end the program? No. Ronald Reagan had a similar problem in the 80s, he fixed it along with Tipp O’Neil. We can and should do it again.
I do understand you CI. I disagree with you. There’s a difference. I do not believe that taxation is equal to tyranny. I believe that as long as you have a vote, you have a say. You may not like the answer, but that’s not tyranny, that’s just losing.
And you may disagree, but SC rulings going back 70 years say you are wrong. Alexander Hamilton says you’re wrong as well. The debate has been had, the safety net is Constitutional. If you want to end it, i suggest the ballot box.
This is the USA. We do not let our seniors starve, we do not turn away people in emergency rooms for not having insurance or not being able to prove you have insurance. We take care of eachother and we do it through taxation.
By the way, someone mentioned the Chilean system before. Huge failure:
http://tcf.org/commentary/pdfs/nc962/chilefactsheet.pdf
Paul Krugman summarizes it well:
Privatizers who laud the Chilean system never mention that it has yet to deliver on its promise to reduce government spending. More than 20 years after the system was created, the government is still pouring in money. Why? Because, as a Federal Reserve study puts it, the Chilean government must “provide subsidies for workers failing to accumulate enough capital to provide a minimum pension.” In other words, privatization would have condemned many retirees to dire poverty, and the government stepped back in to save them.
The same thing is happening in Britain. Its Pensions Commission warns that those who think Mrs. Thatcher’s privatization solved the pension problem are living in a “fool’s paradise.” A lot of additional government spending will be required to avoid the return of widespread poverty among the elderly – a problem that Britain, like the U.S., thought it had solved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html
Actually, insipid, the Federal government did “hold a gun to your mother’s head” – figuratively. But the threat was real, and it could easily have become literal. Unless your mother was one of a very small number of persons exempt from participation in Social Security, since 1982 if she had an earned income she had no choice in whether she participated. She almost certainly did not choose voluntarily to do so, either – it’s a virtual certainty she was compelled to do so by law. (There are a small number of cases where persons had an option, but those cases generally relate to persons covered by a retirement system who would otherwise be exempt from participation who opted to voluntarily transfer to a different retirement system including Social Security.) The same is true with Medicare; participation therein is similarly compulsory by law. Had your mother actually tried to avoid participating in either program while earning an income, she’d eventually have received a visit from Federal law enforcement agents. And they are generally armed. Further: the description of Social Security as a “ponzi scheme” is, from the perspective of a retirement investment, exactly correct. A ponzi investment scheme uses receipts from current investors to pay benefits to current beneficiaries vice basing those payments on any form of securing collateral. That’s precisely what Social Security does today. Current OASDI taxes are used to pay current beneficiaries; only any “surplus” is “invested” in Federal bonds – which happened to be issued by the same organization that has the obligation to pay. In short, there’s nothing securing Social Security. It’s all smoke and mirrors. And the future demographics are a killer. If you tried to set up a private retirement fund today like Social Security is currently organized, you’d get a visit from law enforcement posthaste. The first thing they’d do is to ask you if you’ve actually done anything to set up the system and taken any employee contributions. If you answered yes, the next thing you’d hear is, “You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent . . .… Read more »
I believe you’re wasting your time arguing, CI. Anyone who fails to see that compulsory does not equate to voluntary has already traded their freedom for a promise of security – and, absent the efforts of better men than themselves, will soon have neither.
Oh, bullshit, Hondo. Cash is also issued by the U.S. government, and is backed by its credit. If you think that’s worthless you can send me all you’ve got. Hell, if you have any extra “worthless” government bonds you want to send me, i’ll take those too. Hell because i’m a generous guy, i’ll give you 10 cents on the dollar for every worthless scrap of paper you send me. I’m a giver.
ALL insurance operates on lots of people paying into it. It doesn’t make it a “ponzi scheme” that’s just how insurance works.
Yes, my mother paid taxes. It was the law and she followed it. The law also enforces that she not speed, that she not steal or any other illegal activities. Obeying laws and paying taxes is the price she and i and you pay for a civilized society.
Oh- off topic- but the Moyhnihan report which you claimed somehow proved that welfare has been as bad for black people as the KKK came out the same year Medicare came into existence and at a time when most blacks were still prohibited from collecting SS. So you’re full of shit there too.
@59- Wow, that should win a medal for the worst mangling of Franklin’s statement ever. The phrase is no taxation without representation. Unless if you live in Washington DC, you have representation.
Experts agree: SS is not Ponzi Scheme: “Social Security is and always has been either a “pay-as-you-go” system or one that was partially advance-funded. Its structure, logic, and mode of operation have nothing in common with Ponzi schemes or chain letters or pyramid schemes. The first modern social insurance program began in Germany in 1889 and has been in continuous operation for more than 100 years. The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi’s scheme lasted barely 200 days.” http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm “Assuming that technological progress continues over the next 70 years, and output productivity growth continues over the next 70 years, the finances of Social Security are relatively easy to fix. A fairly minor cut in benefits, combined with a relatively small increase in taxes, will bring the system back into balance again. (the latest Social Security report projects a 75-year deficit of $4.3 trillion. That sounds like a lot of money, but over 75 years it’s roughly $60 billion a year…not chicken feed, but not overwhelming). ” http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/12/is_social_secur.html A Ponzi scheme is a purposeful investment swindle in which early investors are paid off with money put up by later investors in order to encourage more investors. Along the way, the perpetrators pocket a lot of the investors’ money — remember Bernie Madoff? Social Security simply doesn’t fit this definition. While the first Social Security beneficiaries did receive more in benefits than the amounts they paid in FICA taxes, Social Security lacks the fraudulent, profit-making intent to fit the definition of a Ponzi scheme. Social Security is simply one generation helping another. [CBS MoneyWatch.com http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162-39942595/is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme/?tag=mwuser As I make clear in Securing America’s Future, “Social Security is not a Ponzi, or pyramid, scheme; it bears no resemblance to one.” Social Security does not promise great riches, and in fact is not an investment scheme at all. All participants benefit. Even the unusual person with no dependents who dies before retirement without ever having become disabled has received a measure of protection from disability insurance. This person may also have benefited indirectly by not having to… Read more »
Uh, insipid – you’re the one who’s full of it here. The quote you’re thinking of – “No taxation without representation” – wasn’t by Franklin at all. And it wasn’t the quote I was referencing, either.
The most famous form of the quote is “Taxation without representation is tyrrany”, and is often (though inaccurately) attributed to Patrick Henry. The phrase was in use in the American colonies since at least 1750; the concept predates even that. Variants of the phrase were published in Boston papers at the time of the Boston Tea Party and were used to justify same. In particular, James Otis of Boston is most often associated with the “tyranny” variant.
Once again, insipid, you didn’t know what you were talking about. No surprise there. We’re used to that from you.
The quote I was actually referencing has indeed been attributed to Franklin, though he may or may not have actually said it first. And it has nothing to do with taxation, but instead discusses the distinction between security (provided by government) and personal liberty. One form of the quote is “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” There are other variants.
And you still don’t get it. Insurance is voluntary; paying taxes is compulsory. If you can’t see the essential difference – and how that relates to the concept of personal freedom – then I truly pity you.
Oh, and in case you’re going to claim that Social Security isn’t a ponzi scheme, insipid, here’s the commonly accepted definition:
“A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.”
http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm
Certainly sounds to me like exactly how Social Security operates.
I knew which quote you were referring to. I stated that we have representation in order to illustrate the fact that paying taxes does not take away your freedom so long as you have the vote. If you want to run on a program of getting rid of SS and the payrole tax, have at it. But if you lose- as you will- then it’s because we the people rejected your idea.
Whether you like it or not, the founding fathers most cerainly did bring about a government that called for the lefy and collection of taxes through the force of law.
Laws our compulsery, who makes them is up to us. It’s no more tyranny to pay taxes then it is to go the speed limit.
Again, you might, object to SS, i definately objected to paying for a lot of the defense programs republicans put forth. That doesn’t mean the fact that we have to pay for them as tyrany. It just means one side or the other didn’t win at the ballot box.
Yo
You dishonestly left out the entire definition, SS. Kind of like the way the NRA likes to read the 2nd Amendment. Here’s what the ENTIRE defintion says:
A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity.
SS does not promise riches, does not promise high returns, SS does make its finances public, SS operates at a 1% overhead so very little of the money is going for personal investors and none of the money goes to make any of the operators rich.
So, once again, you’re full of shit.
Oh, by the way there’s a post waiting moderation that nicely refutes the ponzi scheme myth, It has a lot of links to i guess the site owners want to make sure i’m not linking to a porn site or something.
insipid: Bullshit, and bullshit. Regarding #65: it’s obvious you no more knew which quote I was referencing than I’m the King of Thailand. And given your continued harping on the same subject (taxation) in #65 above, it’s remotely possible you don’t realize your error even now – though I’m fairly sure you do. In #61, you erroneously discussed an entirely different, non-Franklin quote (which you erroneously attributed to Franklin) than the one I referenced in comment #59. The quote you referenced was on a completely different subject. In #59, I wasn’t discussing taxation at all, dipstick – I was discussing the worth of those individuals, like you, who are willing to trade their personal freedom for the promise of nanny-state-provided “security”. Further, in #61 you made no mention whatsoever of the quote attributed to Franklin that I actually referenced, again referencing “taxation without representation”. It’s obvious you screwed up, jackass. Be man enough to admit you screwed up vice trying to cover up your mistake with thoroughly transparent “spin” bordering on an outright lie. Further, quit falsely accusing me of dishonesty (#66). The complete definition of a ponzi scheme is contained in the first sentence of the paragraph you quote – which I also quoted verbatim. To anyone with normal reading comprehension ability, the remainder of the paragraph you quoted is clearly nothing more than a discussion of the behavior of ponzi scheme operators vice definition. I omitted that part for brevity, but also provided a link to the original source for full context. Doing that is hardly dishonest behavior; inclusion of the link as ready reference proves that. You’d realize all of that that if you (1) had normal reading comprehension ability or (2) weren’t so emotionally invested in the subject at hand (Social Security) that you choose to ignore reality. Obviously, either your reading comprehension ability is lacking or you are incapable of being objective on this subject – or, perhaps, both. My money’s on both. Quit pissing on peoples’ legs and telling them it’s raining, insipid. People have figured out you do that as a matter of… Read more »
No, you were the one trying to fool people by conveniently leaving out the entire definition because it did not fit your meme that it is a ponzi scheme. The entire paragraph was the definition, not just the first sentences. In fact it even has a question at the header, “what is a ponzi schem” and the ENTIRE paragraph is the answer. Plus even if you were to go by just the first sentence Social Security does not fit the definition of a ponzi scheme because there is no fraud involved. Everyone knows where the money is coming from, what the purpose is and what it’s there for. They publish yearly reports as to its solvency. So even if you go by just the first sentence and leave out the rest, you’re still wrong.
As stated in the waiting for moderation quote above:
“A Ponzi scheme is a purposeful investment swindle in which early investors are paid off with money put up by later investors in order to encourage more investors. Along the way, the perpetrators pocket a lot of the investors’ money — remember Bernie Madoff? Social Security simply doesn’t fit this definition. While the first Social Security beneficiaries did receive more in benefits than the amounts they paid in FICA taxes, Social Security lacks the fraudulent, profit-making intent to fit the definition of a Ponzi scheme. Social Security is simply one generation helping another.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162-39942595/is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme/?tag=mwuser
So again, you’re full of shit. Even if we used your agreed upon definition, it is no ponzi scheme.
As far as the Frankilin Quote, yes i absolutely did understand which quote one you were referring to. My mother did not give up freedom for security, she had freedom. She had the freedom to vote out of office anyone supporting the safety net. Instead she did the opposite, so no she did not give up freedom for security. Obviously you’re too dense to understand that basic consept.
insipid: numbnuts, the definition I quoted was from the SEC. Regarding investments, their opinion is definitive; CBSNews’ opinion, which you now quote because it serves your purposes, is not.
Further: the definition you quote in your last post above is not the definition not each of us quoted previously. Quit trying to revise your argument after the fact when you’ve already been proven wrong. That’s dishonest as hell. It’s also a clumsy, obvious attempt to do so.
Finally: if you deny that the definition is contained in the first sentence, and that the rest of the paragraph is explanation, you’re either unable to comprehend written English or are deliberately dissembling. What part of “A ponzi scheme is . . . . ” don’t you get?
Then again selective quotation and dissembling is what I’ve come to expect from you. So I’m not surprised.
You’re better off ordering something from the dollar menu Hondo, that’s something he understands.
Insipid, no one cares! Stop mis quoting Franklin, and suck start a shotgun in your mouth please, it will cure you of you manifold issues and misconceptions…
Guys, guys…he’s just pissed he lost his slap fight over in Dupont Circle over the weekend, and as a result he’s trying to argue himself into knots.
Looks like he’s done a pretty good job thus far.
insipid, SS should never have been a permanent program, it should have been declared unconstitutional, and the “Great Society” did nothing more than create a permanent underclass that as LBJ said, “I’ll have those n*****s voting Democrat for the next hundred years.” Can you dispute ANY of that?
Ah yes, we’re all racist, uneducated, violent morons who want nothing more than to kill farmers.
I’ll have to bring that up to my non-anglo friends at my next Mensa meeting.
Goddammit I hate these idiots.
I can’t believe I missed all this.
Insipid: Do you genuinely believe that taxation is okay no matter what it is going towards? Or wouldn’t you rather see a system that didn’t operate at the point of a gun in order to spend on whatever it believed was right?
As i stated before, even if you go by just the first sentence, and ignroe the explanation, there is no way that SS mits YOUR definition of Ponzi scheme because there is no fraud involved. So, once again, you’re full of shit up to your eyeballs.
Apparently you don’t recognize what fraud is, or a ponzi scheme,much like you don’t know the difference between an opinion and a fact. Now, make that a large fries and a coffee.
Yo, insipid! You gonna comment on your brother liberal’s comments about disparaging veterans, or just piss and moan that people who don’t give up their entire paychecks for “the greater good” are just somehow cold-hearted pricks?
Inipid, just out of curiosity do you realize what kind of monster Stalin was? Ignore all the other crap you are trying to drag into this. When that many years of facing THE WORST HUMAN TO WALK THE EARTH maybe there was a little more going on than what you want to look at. If you take something out of historical context sure you can say well this applies now…blah, blah, blah. The Korean war was Stalin using the Norks and Chinease to test the world. You don’t look at things with any perspective except whatever skewed vision you want to. I know you think that we are just a bunch of dumbasses, but we know history and we know evil a hell of a lot better than you do.
By the way insipid you should feel blessed that there are people like us that are willing to kill and die to protect people like you from the evil in the world.
Wow! You ignore a topic for a bit and it goes from an article about Veterans to the Ponzi scheme aka Social Security??
Typical self-centered troll behavior. Bwess his widdle hardt.
@70- Fine, let’s look at the definition from the SEC again and only regard the first sentence because you say so. Here’s the definition: A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. That’s the one you agree on, right? You’re not going to come back and say that i can only consider every other word after i prove that you’re wrong even when we apply that defintion are you? Ok, using the agreed upon definition (for now, until you try and claim that it only applies when you do THIS with your hands) Social Security does not meet the definition of a ponzi scheme. Social Security is not a fraud. Here are the elements of fraud. In order to claim fraud you must prove ALL of the elements. 1. Fraud is done intentionally You have to A. Make a false statement. Is usually done in connection with the sale of something. Generally it is the seller who does it. B. The false statement has to be of a material fact. C. There has to be a knowledge of the falsity of the statement either lying, or a reckless disregard for the truth. D. Intention to induce reliance on the statement. E. Plaintiff justifiably relies on stmt. To detriment of plaintiff. Not only is there no lying involved in SS, but so far SS has been an asset rather than a detriment to society. SS along with medicare has virtually eliminated what used to be horrible poverty amongst the elderly. Even people who die before collecting it generally benefit in some way either through not having to support a relative or at least they get the security of knowing that it is there should they become disabled. Furthermore, the funds in SS are not “purported” to be there, they ARE there as is evidenced by the fact that it has not missed a check for over 70 years. So even going by the definition you favor FOR NOW you’re still wrong, Socaial Security is not a… Read more »
Wow insipid really goes beyond himself. I liked when he called us racist for using the term “thug” but couldn’t tell how he could tell what race any of us were.
6 hours to come up with that answer? Or did sweetmeat have you pull a shift at the bus station?
Jason, let’s make a deal, you won’t compare me to Stalin and I won’t compare you to Hitler. Ok?
When i called you racists, i was basing it on what you were DOING. I don’t remember all the particulars of the thread, but i do remember one person, for instance, saying something to the effect that he was glad Trayvon was dead. I also remember the fact that there was a double standard in calling Trayvon a “thug” who was never arrested never accused by anyone of violence and not calling George a “thug” who was arrested twice both for violent behavior.
For instance i think the most virulently racist ad i’ve heard was done by Herman Cain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-uckxN7-sY
The fact that Herman Cain, a black man, made the ad does not absolve it of racism. Likewise exhulting in the death of Trayvon Martin a 17 year old because you decided he’s a thug is still racist. I don’t care what color you are. So no, it didn’t matter to me what color you were, because that’s not why i called folks that.
Also, it took 6 hours because when i’m not typing here, i’m actually doing other things. Did you really think i was sitting in front of the computer contemplating the answer for 6 hours. For the record, i went to the gym, i ate dinner and i went to the library.
Just to be clear, i don’t think i was calling everyone a racist, just those doing racist things…. Which was almost everyone.
I didn’t compare you to Stalin, I just think you are a really bad student of history. See you took a quote out of context and without any historical context. Do you realize how many people Stalin starved to death?
If you study history you realize how much fraud was involved with the passage and legal argument to get social security through the supreme court. Just saying….
I just read the decision I didn’t see anything fraudulent in their decision. Seemed like a well reasoned decision based on law to me.
Yes, i am aware of how many people Stalin starved to death. Are you aware of the millions that have not starved to death because of SS?
I would be willing to bet WAY more people starved to death under Stalin than didn’t starve to death under SS. Also I would argue that SS has had an overall negative effect on society, because rather than neighbors, families and society taking care of itself it now relies on the government. Since SS and Medicare healthcare costs and the proliferation of nursing homes have skyrocketed. Rather than people taking care of each other it is easier to just push it off on the government. Granny gets too old rather than keeping her at home like traditionally was done you send her to a nursing home which is paid for by SS and Medicare. Wow I came up with that in like five minutes…
Without looking I do believe that Social Security was passed as a tax, but in what way is it a tax? Now I know you don’t like playing by the rules but constitutionally does that really apply…
Wait a minute why am I bothering trying to discuss anything with you? I know that you will not get it in the end and I will just have more fun playing my kitty and you would have more fun with a glory hole…have fun and good night.
…and by my kitty I mean an actual cat.
Well, you can have your opinions but you can’t have your own facts. The fact is that there WAS a crushing rate of elderly poverty before SS and Medicare. Hell, Medicare alone reduced elderly povery by 50%. Most people do take care of their parents, the choice to send them to a nursing home or hospice is not made lightly. But there are also times when the parent has a condition that is not easily treated at home and requires professionals. When those times happen, it’s nice that medicare and medicaid is there. Plus there is also times when the children do not have the financial means to take care of their parents. Again, it’s nice that it is there.
Here’s the reality of what SS and Medicare provides and what it was like before these programs existed:
http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2011/09/16/perrys-monstrous-lies-about-social-security/
By the way, i think you’re a homophobe because you say homophobic things, Jason. I don’t know if you’re gay or not.
Also, this refrain of “don’t get it” coming from some of you is incredibly arrogant. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they don’t understand you. The notion that you are telling some indellible truth that can’t be argued with once some revelation is revealed is just pure ego.
There’s not a single solitary thing anyone has written on this board that i do not understand.
And i garuntee you that outside the bubble of this site, if we took the things said about the military from the NY Times comments and showed them to people along with the statements here regarding SS most of the public would find the later to be more shocking.
The article i just linked to has a nice take-down of the notion that we’d be better off if we handed SS over to the private sector: There is nothing in the private sector — nor is anything likely to emerge — that could replace Social Security at the same low cost to taxpayers. From the article: “Simply trashing Social Security by calling it a Ponzi scheme ignores the fact that when you pay your FICA payroll tax, you’re getting an inflation-adjusted annuity, disability insurance, a small death benefit for your survivors plus Medicare benefits. Try to find a package like this in the private sector. It doesn’t exist. You’d have to buy an inflation-protected annuity, disability and life policy separately — and they are no bargains. Keep in mind, when private insurers offer these products they have to pay commissions and marketing costs, so they load policies with lots of hidden expenses. They can’t offer the same economies of scale that Social Security can, which isn’t burdened with the excessive marketing and administrative expenses. On an inflation-adjusted annuity alone, you pay dearly to keep up with the cost of living. Compared to an immediate annuity (without inflation protection), your payment would be from 24 percent to 30 percent lower. For that reason, private inflation-protected annuities are relatively scarce and unpopular. Private disability policies, which I recommend, are expensive outside of group plans (buy one through your employer if you can). For a 40-year-old wanting a $4,500 monthly benefit, the annual premium would be about $2,300. Life insurance premiums vary greatly, depending upon your health, age and amount of coverage. The older and sicker you are, the higher the cost. If you have chronic conditions, risky occupation or a flawed medical history, good luck getting coverage. Social Security and Medicare don’t turn anyone away. What about examining Perry’s inference that current workers are contributing money for today’s retirees? That’s true, but it’s not a Ponzi scheme. It’s well known that there will be fewer workers in the future to fund the system, which will create a regular structural deficit by… Read more »
Insipid: Originally, the Supreme Court was firmly against Social Security and other expansionist views of the Commerce Clause. The way that it was decided the way it was is because Franklin Delano Roosevelt essentially threatened the Justices, saying that if they didn’t rule the way he wanted them to, he would institute forced retirements, radically expand the court, and pack it with his people.
So they made a decision in favor of it, even though technically according to the legal doctrine of the time it was unconstitutional.
The court packing plan was shot down by Congress and was vastly unpopular. In fact, it was probably FDR’s largest political defeat. He wasn’t able to impliment any of his plans in changing the SC. He got his way the old-fashioned way, by remaining President long enough to pick out his own justices. Nothing nefarious about it.
Here’s the supreme court decisions
:http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
If you actually read them, you’ll see that every single issue you guys have brought up, including 10th amendment arguments is addressed and shot down.
I know you like to see nefarious things in every loss (why did Obama win? acorn!) but sometimes your argument is heard and either the voters or the courts just reject them. In the case of SS both the voters and the courts have rejected your arguments resourdingly.
insipid: re your inane comment 82. The law you’d have broken is the ERISA – specifically, you’d have violated 29 USC 1082, which requires private pension plans to meet minimum funding standards. You’d also have been guilty of either theft or fraud, as well as tax evasion. Essentially, a private pension plan is legally required to have assets backing it. A private-sector employer setting up a pension plan is legally required to contribute to the pension fund (29 USC 1082) in order to ensure assets are available, and in return receives favorable tax treatment for those contributions. Employee contributions likewise go to the pension fund. The pension fund pays expenses and benefits using its assets. Setting up a private pension fund as Social Security is currently set up – e.g., direct payment of current benefits from current employee contributions – would be illegal in at least two and almost certainly three ways. First, it would fail to meet the funding requirements of 10 USC 1082, in that the employer would not be making the contributions to the fund as required by law. Second, by using employee contributions to pay benefits as opposed to pension plan assets/income, the employer would be intentionally diverting contributions from their legally required purpose (pension plan funding) to other uses (payment of current benefits), and could also be achieving a financial gain from doing so (avoidance of making some or all of the legally required employer contributions). Whether that’s theft or fraud, take your pick. It’s one or the other, and possibly both. Since deception is involved (pension funding practices are commonly accepted practice and are well-known), I’d say it qualifies as fraud – but I’ll settle for grand theft. Third, if the employer in any way received favorable tax status (e.g., by gaining tax exemption for reduced current employer contributions), there would also be tax evasion. Since the employer contributions would not have been used for the purpose required (funding pension plan assets) in order to legitimately gain tax exemption, any tax benefit claimed by the employer would be unlawful. Bottom line: once again, insipid,… Read more »
Minor addendum to post 100: I missed a couple of other obvious violations of law in comment 99 above. To set up any type of scheme, it’s a virtual certainty that either electronic communications or the USPS will be used. So add either wire fraud and mail fraud (or both) as charges. And if more than one person is involved in setting up the scheme, each individual will also be guilty of conspiracy. Regarding your assertion that there is “no lying involved in SS”: bull. The Federal government has been lying about Social Security since before it existed. When FDR first proposed Social Security, he deceptively sold it as a “savings program” where you’d be “getting your own money back”. We all know that’s bullshit. The SCOTUS has held that Social Security taxes are not earmarked in any way (and that they thus may be used for any purpose the Congress desires). Congress has done exactly that for years. The SCOTUS has also held that an individual has no vested property interest in Social Security – as a US communist who later was deported found out the hard way when he tried to collect Social Security benefits that he’d “earned” (Flemming v. Nestor, 1960). With Social Security, you get what the Federal government decides to give you. You don’t “earn” squat – because no contractual relationship exists. And you have no legal claim to ownership of a damn penny paid into Social Security, nor any contractual claim to a damn penny from Social Security. All you did was pay your taxes. You didn’t purchase or invest a damn thing. If the Federal government decides you get nada, nada you get. Further, the supposed Social Security “Trust Fund” – isn’t. As noted above, per the SCOTUS there are no legal restrictions on how Congress can choose use that money. It’s merely the cumulative difference between receipts and outlays, loaned by the Federal Government from itself to itself – and already spent. (Try getting your bank to OK a loan like that.) Further, there are also no real assets or investments backing… Read more »