Trump Shreds DeSantis: He ‘Can’t Win the General Election’ Because of Record on Entitlement Programs

[libertybele]

   We finally agree on something, lately!!   

And for most of my working careers I was a 1099 Independent Contractor.

But I remember my 1st part time job when in high school, working a short-order grill.

$1.25 an hour. 

They took money out of that for FICA   

I worked at a local hamburger joint making all of $1.25/hr. too.  I got fired because I wouldn't sweep up the lettuce off the floor and put it back into the lettuce bin to serve people!

[Hoodat]

Why?  Why should everyone be able to opt out?

It's called 'Equal Protection'.

[Kamaji]

It's called 'Equal Protection'.

It does not apply in any of the situations you have described.  Maybe you should read up on what the Constitutional doctrine actually entails, rather than making it up out of whole cloth to suit your personal subjective whims.

For example, a public school teacher is not identical to a private school teacher, and a law that makes a distinction between the two will generally be upheld as having a rational basis, i.e., as not violating equal protection.

[Hoodat]

I did not mention the Constitution.  It is a matter of ethics.  If Social Security is voluntary for some, it should be voluntary for all.  It is called 'universalization'.  When government comes in and puts rules in places that are discriminatory, singling out those not part of their club for mandatory taxation, then they are violating the equal application of that mandate.

[Bigun]

It does not apply in any of the situations you have described.  Maybe you should read up on what the Constitutional doctrine actually entails, rather than making it up out of whole cloth to suit your personal subjective whims.

For example, a public school teacher is not identical to a private school teacher, and a law that makes a distinction between the two will generally be upheld as having a rational basis, i.e., as not violating equal protection.

Allowing public entities to provide themselves advantages over those in the private sector is a HUGE reason why we find ourselves in the mess we do!

[Kamaji]

I did not mention the Constitution.  It is a matter of ethics.  If Social Security is voluntary for some, it should be voluntary for all.  It is called 'universalization'.  When government comes in and puts rules in places that are discriminatory, singling out those not part of their club for mandatory taxation, then they are violating the equal application of that mandate.

Then don't hide behind a Constitutional term - equal protection is a Constitutional term - if all you want to do is to argue that it is an unwise policy.

Geez.

[Bigun]

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
Frederic Bastiat

[Hoodat]

Then don't hide behind a Constitutional term - equal protection is a Constitutional term - if all you want to do is to argue that it is an unwise policy.

Geez.

I didn't hide behind anything.  I was out in the open with my argument.  Imposing taxation based on employer for the exact same job violates equal protection.  Period.

[Kamaji]

I didn't hide behind anything.  I was out in the open with my argument.  Imposing taxation based on employer for the exact same job violates equal protection.  Period.

No, it does not violate equal protection.  It violates your personal sense of good policy, that's all.  There are plenty of other policy reasons for why one sovereign - the federal government - might not want to impose the full panoply of obligations on another sovereign - the state governments - particularly if those state governments have already adequately provided for their own state employees.

You personally don't like that policy; well, too bad.  Why don't you get into politics and start pursuing a change in that policy if it chafes your panties so badly?

If not, then stop misusing terms for rhetorical effect to try and disguise your personal policy preferences as a matter of Constitutional right.

[Hoodat]

You personally don't like that policy; well, too bad.

I don't like that policy because it violates equal protection.  If an engineer working for DOE is allowed to opt out of paying (and collecting) social security taxes, then as an engineer, I should be afforded that same protection.  Likewise, a maintenance worker at the University of Richmond should have the right to direct the 14.4% of income (confiscated by the federal government at the point of a gun) into a retirement fund just as their counterparts at Virginia Commonwealth University get to do a few miles down river.

[Kamaji]

I don't like that policy because it violates equal protection.  If an engineer working for DOE is allowed to opt out of paying (and collecting) social security taxes, then as an engineer, I should be afforded that same protection.  Likewise, a maintenance worker at the University of Richmond should have the right to direct the 14.4% of income (confiscated by the federal government at the point of a gun) into a retirement fund just as their counterparts at Virginia Commonwealth University get to do a few miles down river.

Once again, no, it does not violate equal protection.  Period.  Equal protection:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection


It merely violates your personal, subjective sense of good policy.

[Bigun]

Once again, no, it does not violate equal protection.  Period.  Equal protection:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection


It merely violates your personal, subjective sense of good policy.

Violating MY sense of good policy covers a LOT of territory I'll assure you!

Starting with allowing the public sector to compete with the private sector anywhere!

[Hoodat]

Once again, no, it does not violate equal protection.  Period.  Equal protection:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

It merely violates your personal, subjective sense of good policy.

You seem determined to turn this into a legal argument.  For the record, this isn't a matter of violating my "personal, subjective sense of good policy".  Social Security alone does that.  But subjectively allowing protections from it to some while denying it to others violates equal protection.  If no one was allowed to opt out, then there would be no equal protection argument from me, even though I would still vehemently object to the overall policy of stealing retirement funds from workers (at the point of a gun) during their most productive years.

So lets consider these two workers - Raymond and Spike.  Both are plant maintenance supervisors living in Richmond, VA.  Raymond works at VCU while Spike works at UR.  Both have access to investment opportunities that work towards a "legitimate governmental objective", i.e. financial security in retirement.  However, Raymond has access to an additional asset - the Virginia Retirement Fund - that Spike does not have.

The federal government comes along and offers Raymond a deal.  The government will stop confiscating 14% of his pay each check if he in turn puts money into the VRF.  He agrees, and now he has a new non-Ponzi-scheme investment option to invest in.  And he now has 14% of his personal pay that he can invest into it.

Meanwhile, Spike is left without any option.  He would love to have the ability to take that 14% and invest it into a true investment fund.  But he is prohibited by law from putting it into the VRF.  And the federal government won't allow him to put it into a 401(k), IRA, or other type account.

Two workers.  Same occupation.  Same job description.  But one is allowed the freedom to opt out of the Social Security ponzi scheme while the other does not.  That violates equal protection without regard to any Constitutional definition.  But if you want to argue the legal case, it comes down to what constitutes a "legitimate governmental objective".  If that objective is financial security after retirement, then you bet your sweet ass this violates the Constitution.  But if the government wants to argue that their legitimate governmental objective is to offer protections to government workers as a special class, then their open admission of equal protection violation would suffice to defend them from constitutional action.  Catch-22.

[Kamaji]

You seem determined to turn this into a legal argument.  For the record, this isn't a matter of violating my "personal, subjective sense of good policy".  Social Security alone does that.  But subjectively allowing protections from it to some while denying it to others violates equal protection.  If no one was allowed to opt out, then there would be no equal protection argument from me, even though I would still vehemently object to the overall policy of stealing retirement funds from workers (at the point of a gun) during their most productive years.

So lets consider these two workers - Raymond and Spike.  Both are plant maintenance supervisors living in Richmond, VA.  Raymond works at VCU while Spike works at UR.  Both have access to investment opportunities that work towards a "legitimate governmental objective", i.e. financial security in retirement.  However, Raymond has access to an additional asset - the Virginia Retirement Fund - that Spike does not have.

The federal government comes along and offers Raymond a deal.  The government will stop confiscating 14% of his pay each check if he in turn puts money into the VRF.  He agrees, and now he has a new non-Ponzi-scheme investment option to invest in.  And he now has 14% of his personal pay that he can invest into it.

Meanwhile, Spike is left without any option.  He would love to have the ability to take that 14% and invest it into a true investment fund.  But he is prohibited by law from putting it into the VRF.  And the federal government won't allow him to put it into a 401(k), IRA, or other type account.

Two workers.  Same occupation.  Same job description.  But one is allowed the freedom to opt out of the Social Security ponzi scheme while the other does not.  That violates equal protection without regard to any Constitutional definition.  But if you want to argue the legal case, it comes down to what constitutes a "legitimate governmental objective".  If that objective is financial security after retirement, then you bet your sweet ass this violates the Constitution.  But if the government wants to argue that their legitimate governmental objective is to offer protections to government workers as a special class, then their open admission of equal protection violation would suffice to defend them from constitutional action.  Catch-22.

No, it doesn't violate "equal protection".  It violates your sense of good policy.

Equal protection has a very specific meaning in the U.S. context - it is a Constitutional right - and you are trying to hide behind that and pretend that your arguments touch on something more fundamental than mere policy differences, when they do not.

If that is not the case, then choose a label - if that is all you intend the phrase to be - that does not automatically conflate your position with the Constitutional concept of equal protection.

[Hoodat]

No, it doesn't violate "equal protection".  It violates your sense of good policy.

Again, Social Security as a whole violates my sense of good policy.  Selectively allowing people of a certain protected club to opt out while denying that right to others violates equal protection. 

See:  Kant’s Social and Political Philosophy

[Kamaji]

Again, Social Security as a whole violates my sense of good policy.  Selectively allowing people of a certain protected club to opt out while denying that right to others violates equal protection. 

See:  Kant’s Social and Political Philosophy

No, it does not violate equal protection.  It would violate equal protection if black engineers were allowed to opt out of social security while non-blacks were not, because there is no rational basis for the distinction being made. 

It simply violates your subjective sense of fair play.

Stop pretending that your personal, subjective policy preferences are, ipso facto, of Constitutional dimension.  Or even of philosophical dimension beyond your personal utility preferences.

[DB]

Violating MY sense of good policy covers a LOT of territory I'll assure you!

Starting with allowing the public sector to compete with the private sector anywhere!

Yep!

[Hoodat]

No, it does not violate equal protection.  It would violate equal protection if black engineers were allowed to opt out of social security while non-blacks were not, because there is no rational basis for the distinction being made.

Skin color is a rational basis for distinction.  Age is a rational basis for distinction.  Gender is a rational basis for distinction.  Religion is a rational basis for distinction.  Education level is a rational basis for distinction.  Salary is a rational basis for distinction.  Job position is a rational basis for distinction.  Employer is a rational basis for distinction.  Industry is a rational basis for distinction.  It doesn't mean that government has free license to discriminate based off of them, but the classifications themselves are still considered "rational".

It simply violates your subjective sense of fair play.

And now the goal posts have been moved.  Before, it was a matter of 'violating my sense of good policy'.  Now, has become a matter of 'violating my sense of fair play', which by the way is exactly what Equal Protection is by definition.  So yes, you are now repeating my claim back to me as if it is some huge discovery you just came up with.

Stop pretending that your personal, subjective policy preferences are, ipso facto, of Constitutional dimension.

I didn't bring up the Constitution.  You did.

Or even of philosophical dimension beyond your personal utility preferences.

Personal utility preference?  Are you high?  I simply stated that it is not fair to allow a special selected class (based solely on employer) to be immune to the confiscation of income imposed on workers as a whole.  This isn't about being allowed to join the Girl Scouts or paying more for car insurance.  This is about the mandatory confiscation of property at the point of a gun that is not being applied equally.

As for 'philosophical dimensions', I'll tend to lean towards the enlightenment of philosophers like Emanuel Kant, John Locke, etc., than to rely on Constitutional responses to arguments never made and other goal post infractions.  Not sure why you continue to argue other points than the one that is being made.  Again, it is not fair to impose mandatory income confiscation on 'all' workers when you allow a protected class to be excluded from that 'all' class based solely on employer.  That in itself is a violation of 'equal protection' - Constitution or no Constitution.  To openly imply that the moral term 'equal protection' would not exist without the US Constitution is ludicrous.

[Hoodat]

Let's examine this a different way.  Raymond at VCU is afforded a federal government-granted privilege that his occupational peer at UR does not enjoy.  What is the government's justification for granting this privilege?  Is their government objective justifiable under the Santa Clara Law Review article in your previous link?

[roamer_1]

Violating MY sense of good policy covers a LOT of territory I'll assure you!

Starting with allowing the public sector to compete with the private sector anywhere!

That's mostly right. Almost exclusively right.

There is an argument that in the end, the state (NOT the Fed) must pick up the slack when it comes to welfare... The things historically that the community can't handle so well... Sanitariums and old folks homes and hospitals...

But historically it picked up the things the family could not handle, that the Church can't handle, that business charity and the county can't handle... State institutions have been the last saftey net, under a broad array of others.

I think that's a much better way, and closer to what is right.

[Kamaji]

Let's examine this a different way.  Raymond at VCU is afforded a federal government-granted privilege that his occupational peer at UR does not enjoy.  What is the government's justification for granting this privilege?  Is their government objective justifiable under the Santa Clara Law Review article in your previous link?

What privilege is that?  Not being subject to an imposition that someone else in a different economic, social, and political position is subject to?

Really?  Do you really want to travel down the leftist road of converting everything into a privilege?

[Hoodat]

The privilege of not having the last 14% of one's income confiscated by government and placed into a ponzi scheme at the point of a gun.

[Kamaji]

The privilege of not having the last 14% of one's income confiscated by government and placed into a ponzi scheme at the point of a gun.

Why is that a privilege?

[Kamaji]

The privilege of not having the last 14% of one's income confiscated by government and placed into a ponzi scheme at the point of a gun.

So, by your argument, if even one person is subjected to a particular burden by government, then everyone, no matter their circumstances, must be subjected to exactly the same burden.

So if one person is required to disclose their financial relationships to the government for whatever reason, then everyone has to disclose their financial relationships to the government.

Really?

[Hoodat]

It is self-explanatory.  By definition:

privilege
prĭv′ə-lĭj, prĭv′lĭj  -  noun

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.


Advantage - getting to invest in non-ponzi scheme
immunity - from paying FICA taxes
benefit - greater return on retirement.  Retirement based on actual investment instead of ponzi promises