The Briefing Room
General Category => Elections 2024 => Topic started by: Maj. Bill Martin on May 24, 2023, 04:30:16 pm
-
Trump Shreds DeSantis: He ‘Can’t Win the General Election’ Because of Record on Entitlement Programs
Former President Donald Trump blasted Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) ahead of his presidential campaign launch on Wednesday, asserting he would be doomed to fail in the general election after voting to overhaul entitlement programs when he was a congressman.
Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate, took to Truth Social to hit DeSantis’s support of legislation that took aim at Social Security and Medicare during his time in Congress :
Ron DeSanctus can’t win the General Election (or get the Nomination) because he VOTED TO OBLITERATE SOCIAL SECURITY, EVEN WANTING TO RAISE THE MINIMUM AGE TO 70 (or more!), VOTED TO BADLY WOUND MEDICARE, AND FOUGHT HARD AND VOTED FOR A 23% “TAX ON EVERYTHING” SALES TAX.
He wrote that DeSantis “was, and is, a disciple of horrible RINO Paul Ryan, and others too many to mention.” Trump added, “he desperately needs a personality transplant and, to the best of my knowledge, they are not medically available yet.”
MAGA Inc, a Trump-aligned super PAC, has been critical of DeSantis regarding votes on entitlement programs. One ad from the super PAC suggests DeSantis has “pudding fingers,” which are “all over senior entitlement,” and notes he “voted to cut Social Security 3 times.”
https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2023/05/24/trump-trashes-desantis-he-cant-win-the-general-election/
Really glad that Trump is choosing to make this an issue because it draws a very hard line between the two of them not just on this policy, but upon their entire approach to governing. Do you do things because they seem to be popular/unpopular in the short term, or do you do what you think is actually the right thing to do?
Trump is against any kind of entitlement reform because he thinks it won't be popular. Which, not coincidentally, was exactly why he handed the reins to Fauci during Covid. Because standing up to him would have been too unpopular with the press, and he supposedly would have gotten hammered.
From May 2020 on, DeSantis went against the recommendations of Trump's federal government on Covid, and got blasted in the media, by Democrats, and by Fauci himself. He did it anyway. Here are a few sample articles from the summer of 2021 about how DeSantis wasn't buying Fauci's bullshit.
https://www.local10.com/news/politics/2021/06/04/desantis-criticizes-fauci-after-e-mail-release-florida-chose-freedom-over-faucism/
https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/fauci-desantis-covid-florida/67-de0a6713-6410-44a2-9070-cde5a8c9b9b5
https://www.newsweek.com/anthony-fauci-criticizes-ron-desantis-over-dont-fauci-my-florida-merchandise-1624094
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/07/1034794180/fauci-desantis-vaccine
DeSantis did what he thought was right. Trump did whatever he thought would cause him the fewest political problems.
So now, same issue with entitlements. And I think the current state of entitlements running out of money is so bad that this is actually a winning issue for DeSantis. Let Trump stake out the demagogic leftist position of pushing granny off the cliff in the wheelchair, and let DeSantis make the argument that granny is heading for that cliff already unless we do something fast. Maybe Trump still wins, but at least we have an actual issue of substance/policy where a clear distinction can be drawn between the two candidates.
-
It is funny that Trump thinks DeSantis needs a personality transplant. And Trump's campaign is an entitlement program.
-
Medicare and Social Security are going to have to be dealt with in someway whether Trump likes it or not
When you’re 31 trillion in the hole and rising, everything needs to be on the table.
-
It is funny that Trump thinks DeSantis needs a personality transplant. And Trump's campaign is an entitlement program.
I would agree that DeSsntis is not the most charismatic speaker in the world. But that's not the basis on which I'm casting my vote anyway.
-
I would agree that DeSsntis is not the most charismatic speaker in the world. But that's not the basis on which I'm casting my vote anyway.
I meant that it is Trump that needs a transplant. I would like to see fire from DeSantis. If I wanted a nice guy there is still Jimmy Carter.
-
He wrote that DeSantis “was, and is, a disciple of horrible RINO Paul Ryan, ..... :laugh: :laugh: Gee, where have we heard that before? :silly: Such a crock. Trump comes up with lies and repeats them enough times that people actually begin to believe them; a classic smear tactic. Where's the proof Donald??
-
He wrote that DeSantis “was, and is, a disciple of horrible RINO Paul Ryan, ..... :laugh: :laugh: Gee, where have we heard that before. Such a crock. Trump comes up with lies and repeats them enough times that people actually begin to believe them; a classic smear tactic. Where's the proof Donald??
:thumbsup:
-
Trump Shreds DeSantis: He ‘Can’t Win the General Election’ Because of Record on Entitlement Programs
Former President Donald Trump blasted Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) ahead of his presidential campaign launch on Wednesday, asserting he would be doomed to fail in the general election after voting to overhaul entitlement programs when he was a congressman.
Voting to overhaul entitlement programs is a HUGE PLUS in my book. Only a Democrat would complain about that.
-
He wrote that DeSantis “was, and is, a disciple of horrible RINO Paul Ryan, ..... :laugh: :laugh: Gee, where have we heard that before? :silly: Such a crock. Trump comes up with lies and repeats them enough times that people actually begin to believe them; a classic smear tactic. Where's the proof Donald??
Perhaps the most boasted accomplishment of Trump's Presidency is the tax cuts. And he got them by handing the ball off to Paul Ryan.
-
Perhaps the most boasted accomplishment of Trump's Presidency is the tax cuts. And he got them by handing the ball off to Paul Ryan.
Exactly.
-
Oh but wait, Trump is a Christian now, so he doesn't lie anymore. :nono:
Yes, but he doesn't lie any less either, he's still at the same level of lies and smears as he was for 2016.
-
Perhaps the most boasted accomplishment of Trump's Presidency is the tax cuts. And he got them by handing the ball off to Paul Ryan.
Completely true. Ryan also was the single biggest champion of entitlement reform since Reagan. And Trump trashes him.
-
How many trillions did the debt go up under Trump?
-
How many trillions did the debt go up under Trump?
7.8 trillion.
Granted, a big chunk of that was for Covid. But we were already on an unsustainable path before that. Trump has given no indication that he’s found religion when it comes to spending.
-
Medicare and Social Security are going to have to be dealt with in someway whether Trump likes it or not
@LMAO
Of course,but "dealt with" does NOT mean "eliminated".
When you’re 31 trillion in the hole and rising, everything needs to be on the table.
True,but there can be NO argument that there are other areas that demand attention more than progams like Medicare, SS retirement systems,etc,etc,etc.
Not that these systems do not have problems because they do,but a lot of those problems can be eased by eliminating payments and other expenses that go to illegal aliens and others who don't really qualify.
The truth is that NO "One entitlement system" is at blame. They are ALL a part of the problem,but the FAULT lies with the politicians that not only allowed this to happen,but encouraged it because they knew it was a sure way to get those votes.
The solution is to not only fire the officials who helped create this nightmare because it increased their salaries as well as their chances of keeping their jobs,and then "fire" the politicians that helped the globalists take control.
Once that is done and semi-normalcy has returned,THEN we can go after the globalists behind this like Bill Gates,seize their assets,and lock their asses UP.
In an ideal world that would happen. Unfortunately,we do not live in an ideal world,and the process of setting things right again is going to take a long time,even IF it does happen.
-
@LMAO
Of course,but "dealt with" does NOT mean "eliminated".
True,but there can be NO argument that there are other areas that demand attention more than progams like Medicare, SS retirement systems,etc,etc,etc.
Not true, @sneakypete . Entitlements (last I looked, which was long ago) are HALF of spending.
There is no way to balance the budget, no way to stop the hemorrhaging without effecting entitlements... And they do not belong in the federal wheelhouse.
They should be eliminated, and handed back to the states where they belong. There is no authority in the Constitution for charity. It does not belong to the feds.
And I say that with my ox being gored. I am back on disability, and will likely stay there for a year or two.
-
Not true, @sneakypete . Entitlements (last I looked, which was long ago) are HALF of spending.
There is no way to balance the budget, no way to stop the hemorrhaging without effecting entitlements... And they do not belong in the federal wheelhouse.
They should be eliminated, and handed back to the states where they belong. There is no authority in the Constitution for charity. It does not belong to the feds.
And I say that with my ox being gored. I am back on disability, and will likely stay there for a year or two.
@roamer_1
My disability payments from the army are "charity"?
My SS payments that I have paid in to ever since I was 17 are "charity"
-
My disability payments from the army are "charity"?
@sneakypete
Nope, As I have said in prior conversations with you, The VA, military pensions, and the full variety of federal employee pensions belong to the Fed.
My SS payments that I have paid in to ever since I was 17 are "charity"
No, that's a damn lie foisted upon me and you. And illegal, unconstitutional. It is outright thievery in a pyramid scheme that no other entity can use, BECAUSE it is thievery.
My social security and my disability, not being tied to government service, should have no business with the federal government. And neither should yours - That should be administered by the state, or by private investment.
When a full HALF of this government, that spends MORE than we make, is entitlements, you need look no further to see the corruption it has wrought - I read somewhere, many years ago, that on average, there are four people administrating for every client. Four people being paid way better than you ever were, with full bennies and health care, just to produce your entitlement check.
That is simply absurd. And the reason that can happen is because it is 'governed' off the books, beyond the reach of Congress, with automatic union driven pay. And no one ever does a damn thing BECAUSE it exists 2000 miles away. No Montana governor could survive such a ludicrous bill.
Believe me, return it to the states and it will quickly come in line, and with it, the cost of all medical services, the cost of medical machinery, the cost of the whole medical sector will collapse. Because it is the welfare system that is propping it up.
That's savings in megabucks, and with little difference to the people who actually deserve the help/ retirement...
-
@sneakypete
Nope, As I have said in prior conversations with you, The VA, military pensions, and the full variety of federal employee pensions belong to the Fed.
No, that's a damn lie foisted upon me and you. And illegal, unconstitutional. It is outright thievery in a pyramid scheme that no other entity can use, BECAUSE it is thievery.
My social security and my disability, not being tied to government service, should have no business with the federal government. And neither should yours - That should be administered by the state, or by private investment.
When a full HALF of this government, that spends MORE than we make, is entitlements, you need look no further to see the corruption it has wrought - I read somewhere, many years ago, that on average, there are four people administrating for every client. Four people being paid way better than you ever were, with full bennies and health care, just to produce your entitlement check.
That is simply absurd. And the reason that can happen is because it is 'governed' off the books, beyond the reach of Congress, with automatic union driven pay. And no one ever does a damn thing BECAUSE it exists 2000 miles away. No Montana governor could survive such a ludicrous bill.
Believe me, return it to the states and it will quickly come in line, and with it, the cost of all medical services, the cost of medical machinery, the cost of the whole medical sector will collapse. Because it is the welfare system that is propping it up.
That's savings in megabucks, and with little difference to the people who actually deserve the help/ retirement...
As we are well aware this will likely get worse as we slide into socialism/communism.
-
As we are well aware this will likely get worse as we slide into socialism/communism.
Sure. But that is why it is so danged important to disabuse folks of the notion that there is no other way - There IS another way - A BETTER way.
:beer:
-
@sneakypete
Believe me, return it to the states and it will quickly come in line, and with it, the cost of all medical services, the cost of medical machinery, the cost of the whole medical sector will collapse. Because it is the welfare system that is propping it up.
No,it won't. State politicians are STILL politicans,and what will happen is it will be stolen in 50 different ways,by 50 different bureaucrats and their staffs.
MUCH better to have your foe all sitting in one place and under one command.
-
No,it won't. State politicians are STILL politicans,and what will happen is it will be stolen in 50 different ways,by 50 different bureaucrats and their staffs.
MUCH better to have your foe all sitting in one place and under one command.
Exactly WRONG.
That means ONE lobby, where they would be forced to function in fifty.
That means influence among 500 in the fed, versus influence among 25,000 in the various states.
That means one way, where there could be fifty experiments, finding better ways to do it.
That means distant unelected bureaucrats versus elected bureaucrats close to home.
'Governs least' is ALWAYS closest to the People.
-
Exactly WRONG.
That means ONE lobby, where they would be forced to function in fifty.
That means influence among 500 in the fed, versus influence among 25,000 in the various states.
That means one way, where there could be fifty experiments, finding better ways to do it.
That means distant unelected bureaucrats versus elected bureaucrats close to home.
'Governs least' is ALWAYS closest to the People.
@roamer_1
IF we had a just judicial system,I would agree with you.
We don't.
-
@roamer_1
IF we had a just judicial system,I would agree with you.
We don't.
@sneakypete
So socialism then?
Bullcrap.
The way you fix ALL of it is taking power away from the federal government. Put the damn thing back in its Constitutional box, that is meant to bind it. That's where liberty lies. Always.
-
I certainly wasn't surprised that obummer weaponized the DOJ and every other branch of GOVT. What surprised me is Trump doing nothing but making it worse, with half of his term spent with a Republican Majority. $hit the man went through Chief's of Staff (4) like crap through a goose and don't even get me started on his AG appointments.
If there was a time in the last 10 years to fix this, it would have been then!
-
I certainly wasn't surprised that obummer weaponized the DOJ and every other branch of GOVT. What surprised me is Trump doing nothing but making it worse, with half of his term spent with a Republican Majority. $hit the man went through Chief's of Staff (4) like crap through a goose and don't even get me started on his AG appointments.
If there was a time in the last 10 years to fix this, it would have been then!
Amen! Should I even mention the name Sessions?
-
I liked Sessions and I even respected him for recusing himself from the Russian BS, he lost favor with me over his abuse of the Civil Forfeiture Laws. 6 months later, he was gone anyway and severely mocked and a Bush Family guy was appointed to replace him. Similar to Chris Christy assuring him Christopher Wray would be a great FBI Director.
-
I liked Sessions and I even respected him for recusing himself from the Russian BS, he lost favor with me over his abuse of the Civil Forfeiture Laws. 6 months later, he was gone anyway and severely mocked and a Bush Family guy was appointed to replace him. Similar to Chris Christy assuring him Christopher Wray would be a great FBI Director.
When Sessions endorsed Trump early on, that was the turning point for Trump. That is where the tide shifted away from Cruz and towards Trump. Sessions bears a lot of responsibility for what followed.
-
@sneakypete
So socialism then?
Bullcrap.
The way you fix ALL of it is taking power away from the federal government. Put the damn thing back in its Constitutional box, that is meant to bind it. That's where liberty lies. Always.
@roamer_1
That will never happen because it would require anarchy.
BTW,doesn't the US Constitution recognize and mention the necessity of having a government?
Do NOT throw out the baby with the bathwater. We DO need to correct the politically motivated attacks on our form of government by the very people who have been elected to subvert it,but there just ain't going to be any easy answers because there are thousands,if not tens of thousands of government employees who were either elected or just hired as employees to create the very mess we are in today.
Now,if any sincere move had been made back in the 30's to suppress communist influence in our political system,the story would be different. It isn't,so here we are today,having to try to do it the hard way.
-
That will never happen because it would require anarchy.
Well that's nonsense too @sneakypete , but if we don't do something right soon, there will be anarchy anyway. Removing power from the fed is the only way to FIX it. And it will suck. Bad. But not anywhere near as bad as if we don't fix it.
BTW,doesn't the US Constitution recognize and mention the necessity of having a government?
Advocating putting the fed back in its Constitutional box is not the same as anarchy or removing government at all. I recognize a Constitutionally sound federal government. That ain't what we have right now.
Do NOT throw out the baby with the bathwater. We DO need to correct the politically motivated attacks on our form of government by the very people who have been elected to subvert it,but there just ain't going to be any easy answers because there are thousands,if not tens of thousands of government employees who were either elected or just hired as employees to create the very mess we are in today.
I am not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The answer is always the same: This government is too big for a free people. The government big enough to give you what you need is big enough to take everything you have - And they always will. ALWAYS. History attests,o ver and over, and over again.
Now,if any sincere move had been made back in the 30's to suppress communist influence in our political system,the story would be different. It isn't,so here we are today,having to try to do it the hard way.
It ain't the hard way yet, but it is surely coming unless we turn it around. And that means every aspect of government must shrink substantially. And that is plain as the nose on your face.
A government that costs even half of what a country makes is way, way too big to be sustained, and ours costs way more than that. It MUST be decimated before it destroys us all.
-
@sneakypete
Nope, As I have said in prior conversations with you, The VA, military pensions, and the full variety of federal employee pensions belong to the Fed.
No, that's a damn lie foisted upon me and you. And illegal, unconstitutional. It is outright thievery in a pyramid scheme that no other entity can use, BECAUSE it is thievery.
My social security and my disability, not being tied to government service, should have no business with the federal government. And neither should yours - That should be administered by the state, or by private investment.
When a full HALF of this government, that spends MORE than we make, is entitlements, you need look no further to see the corruption it has wrought - I read somewhere, many years ago, that on average, there are four people administrating for every client. Four people being paid way better than you ever were, with full bennies and health care, just to produce your entitlement check.
That is simply absurd. And the reason that can happen is because it is 'governed' off the books, beyond the reach of Congress, with automatic union driven pay. And no one ever does a damn thing BECAUSE it exists 2000 miles away. No Montana governor could survive such a ludicrous bill.
Believe me, return it to the states and it will quickly come in line, and with it, the cost of all medical services, the cost of medical machinery, the cost of the whole medical sector will collapse. Because it is the welfare system that is propping it up.
That's savings in megabucks, and with little difference to the people who actually deserve the help/ retirement...
Well, Social Security and Medicare are part of the picture. COVID didn't kill us geezers off, so that was not the solution and if anyone was suspicious of the jabs, it was boomers.
But Social Security and Medicare are only part of the so-called entitlement picture. Folks paid into those and should get something back.
There is another big chunk of the budget that goes to welfare, all sorts of food programs, and to medicaid, subsidized housing, etc. An awful lot of those recipients haven't paid in.
And then there are the unaccountable fortunes being spent on Millions of illegal aliens just during this administration.
I think there's a lot of fat to trim before people come after granny's Social Security check.
-
Well, Social Security and Medicare are part of the picture. COVID didn't kill us geezers off, so that was not the solution and if anyone was suspicious of the jabs, it was boomers.
But Social Security and Medicare are only part of the so-called entitlement picture. Folks paid into those and should get something back.
There is another big chunk of the budget that goes to welfare, all sorts of food programs, and to medicaid, subsidized housing, etc. An awful lot of those recipients haven't paid in.
And then there are the unaccountable fortunes being spent on Millions of illegal aliens just during this administration.
I think there's a lot of fat to trim before people come after granny's Social Security check.
Nobody paid anything "into" the social security welfare entitlements. People paid a disguised redistributive income tax, which they were lulled into accepting by being fed the lie that it was some sort of "insurance" against old age and disability.
Where's the insurance contract? The enforceable agreement between you and the insurance provider that includes enforceable provisions you can sue upon to get paid a certain amount once you reach a certain age? Or become disabled?
No enforceable insurance or annuity contract means you didn't "pay into" diddly-squat. It means you were paying a regressive income tax on wages, which you willingly accepted because you swallowed the lies the democrats fed you that it was some sort of insurance program, which it most definitely is not.
That being said, I will fight right along with the rest to make sure that current retirees do not have the carpet yanked out from underneath them if they built their retirements upon the belief they would continue receiving social security welfare benefits, provided that they actually have a colorable need for the money - that means that the wealthy, like Bill Gates, do not get social security, period, no matter how much they paid into it, for the simple reason that they do not need the benefits to maintain their welfare.
VA benefits, quite honestly, should be put onto an enforceable contractual basis, because those are received in exchange for putting your a$$ and your life on the line for the country, and are earned in blood and sweat.
But please. can we drop the stupid nonsense about social security being some sort of enforceable annuity or insurance plan that we paid for? That just continues the democrats' lies about social entitlement programs.
-
Nobody paid anything "into" the social security welfare entitlements. People paid a disguised redistributive income tax, which they were lulled into accepting by being fed the lie that it was some sort of "insurance" against old age and disability.
Where's the insurance contract? The enforceable agreement between you and the insurance provider that includes enforceable provisions you can sue upon to get paid a certain amount once you reach a certain age? Or become disabled?
No enforceable insurance or annuity contract means you didn't "pay into" diddly-squat. It means you were paying a regressive income tax on wages, which you willingly accepted because you swallowed the lies the democrats fed you that it was some sort of insurance program, which it most definitely is not.
That being said, I will fight right along with the rest to make sure that current retirees do not have the carpet yanked out from underneath them if they built their retirements upon the belief they would continue receiving social security welfare benefits, provided that they actually have a colorable need for the money - that means that the wealthy, like Bill Gates, do not get social security, period, no matter how much they paid into it, for the simple reason that they do not need the benefits to maintain their welfare.
VA benefits, quite honestly, should be put onto an enforceable contractual basis, because those are received in exchange for putting your a$$ and your life on the line for the country, and are earned in blood and sweat.
But please. can we drop the stupid nonsense about social security being some sort of enforceable annuity or insurance plan that we paid for? That just continues the democrats' lies about social entitlement programs.
Bull. Every paycheck money was taken out. I didn't make a voluntary contribution. It was mandated by Uncle Sam. It is my money not theirs! So please can we drop the narrative that we didn't pay into the system?
I never said it was an annuity or insurance plan. The Feds took money under the premise that it went to SS and Medicare for retirement.
It IS my money.
-
Well, Social Security and Medicare are part of the picture. COVID didn't kill us geezers off, so that was not the solution and if anyone was suspicious of the jabs, it was boomers.
But Social Security and Medicare are only part of the so-called entitlement picture. Folks paid into those and should get something back.
There is another big chunk of the budget that goes to welfare, all sorts of food programs, and to medicaid, subsidized housing, etc. An awful lot of those recipients haven't paid in.
And then there are the unaccountable fortunes being spent on Millions of illegal aliens just during this administration.
I think there's a lot of fat to trim before people come after granny's Social Security check.
@Smokin Joe
@ Online Kamaji
I am not a religious man,but that one deserves a BIG "Amen!"
You only go backwards when you try to fix the wrong "problem".
-
Bull. Every paycheck money was taken out. I didn't make a voluntary contribution. It was mandated by Uncle Sam. It is my money not theirs! So please can we drop the narrative that we didn't pay into the system?
I never said it was an annuity or insurance plan. The Feds took money under the premise that it went to SS and Medicare for retirement.
It IS my money.
No, it was a tax. When you pay the regular income tax, is that still "your money" and are you entitled to decide how it gets spent?
No, it's not, and you don't.
The same with social security. It is just another income tax - a regressive income tax at that - that is generally imposed on wages (i.e., "earned income") - and the social security welfare entitlement is just that, a social welfare benefit.
Why do people continue to swallow the lies told them by progressives? Progressives want you to believe this lie because it means they can continue to redistribute wealth from those who worked for it to those who do not - notice how many people are now receiving disability benefits that one cannot even colorably argue they "earned" - so long as some smattering of funds continues to go to the elderly.
Why continue to swallow the blue-pill lie FDR - and generations of liberals since then - told in order to seduce the American people into allowing this to pass?
-
Bull. Every paycheck money was taken out. I didn't make a voluntary contribution. It was mandated by Uncle Sam. It is my money not theirs! So please can we drop the narrative that we didn't pay into the system?
I never said it was an annuity or insurance plan. The Feds took money under the premise that it went to SS and Medicare for retirement.
It IS my money.
@libertybele
It is not YOUR money until you get it,but your point is valid. We are all REQUIRED BY LAW to pay into these programs all our working lives,and BY LAW the feral gooberment is required to start paying us back the money we INVESTED BY DEMAND in monthly payments once we become disabled or reach age 65.
NOWHERE AND AT NO TIME did we,the people,EVER agree to have our investments into our futures given to illegal aliens in order to buy votes for the left.
Or even for the right.
These are funds OWED to the individuals that spent their working lives paying into the system,or to any minor children they had if the parents die while the children are minors.
It is NOT the governments money to spend. It is a TRUST FUND FOR THE PEOPLE WHO PAID INTO IT.
Period,end of discussion.
-
@libertybele
It is not YOUR money until you get it,but your point is valid. We are all REQUIRED BY LAW to pay into these programs all our working lives,and BY LAW the feral gooberment is required to start paying us back the money we INVESTED BY DEMAND in monthly payments once we become disabled or reach age 65.
NOWHERE AND AT NO TIME did we,the people,EVER agree to have our investments into our futures given to illegal aliens in order to buy votes for the left.
Or even for the right.
These are funds OWED to the individuals that spent their working lives paying into the system,or to any minor children they had if the parents die while the children are minors.
It is NOT the governments money to spend. It is a TRUST FUND FOR THE PEOPLE WHO PAID INTO IT.
Period,end of discussion.
You have no idea what these programs are. And it’s not your fault because most people don’t. They are not investments. They are not a trust fund. It is a Tax. Period. End of discussion.
And the government is required by no such law to pay you back that money
Most people have no idea what Social Security is. And even when you explain it to it, they still refuse to learn
And even though MAGAS like to blame illegal immigrants for every single problem in this country, even if we had no illegal immigration, these programs would still be facing insolvency. Very few illegal immigrants are receiving Social Security benefits because legally, they can’t
-
Really glad that Trump is choosing to make this an issue because it draws a very hard line between the two of them not just on this policy, but upon their entire approach to governing. Do you do things because they seem to be popular/unpopular in the short term, or do you do what you think is actually the right thing to do?
Trump is against any kind of entitlement reform because he thinks it won't be popular.
@Maj. Bill Martin
The FIEND! WHY would he think that stealing money owed to people who paid it in and then spending it on people who never paid a dime into the system and who aren't even Americans was a bad thing to do?
Which, not coincidentally, was exactly why he handed the reins to Fauci during Covid. Because standing up to him would have been too unpopular with the press, and he supposedly would have gotten hammered.
What the BLEEP does Covid have to do with the government stealing SS money to spend on non-citizens that never paid and will NOT EVER pay a dime into the system?
You just hate "Rude Orange Man". There is NOTHING he can do that would please you,and if he did,you would suddenly be against it.
-
No, it was a tax. When you pay the regular income tax, is that still "your money" and are you entitled to decide how it gets spent?
No, it's not, and you don't.
The same with social security. It is just another income tax - a regressive income tax at that - that is generally imposed on wages (i.e., "earned income") - and the social security welfare entitlement is just that, a social welfare benefit.
Why do people continue to swallow the lies told them by progressives? Progressives want you to believe this lie because it means they can continue to redistribute wealth from those who worked for it to those who do not - notice how many people are now receiving disability benefits that one cannot even colorably argue they "earned" - so long as some smattering of funds continues to go to the elderly.
Why continue to swallow the blue-pill lie FDR - and generations of liberals since then - told in order to seduce the American people into allowing this to pass?
It’s like reparations. If people believe their own money by the government, they will entrenched themselves into that belief.
And there is a significant number of people who are getting more in Social Security benefits then they paid into
But it shows how difficult any reforms will be when even a good number of conservatives believe the lie
-
You have no idea what these programs are. And it’s not your fault because most people don’t. They are not investments. They are not a trust fund. It is a Tax. Period. End of discussion.
And the government is required by no such law to pay you back that money
Most people have no idea what Social Security is. And even when you explain it to it, they still refuse to learn
And even though MAGAS like to blame illegal immigrants for every single problem in this country, even if we had no illegal immigration, these programs would still be facing insolvency
:thumbsup:
It’s like reparations. If people believe their own money by the government, they will entrenched themselves into that belief.
And there is a significant number of people who are getting more in Social Security benefits then they paid into
But it shows how difficult any reforms will be when even a good number of conservatives believe the lie
:thumbsup:
-
I want some of these people to show me the contract where it says the governments going to take money out of your check for your retirement and they can’t spend it on anything else.
Instead of stamping up and down and claiming “it’s my money,” show us the contract.
And I’ll show you Fleming versus Nestor that says otherwise
-
I want some of these people to show me the contract where it says the governments going to take money out of your check for your retirement and they can’t spend it on anything else.
Instead of stamping up and down and claiming “it’s my money,” show us the contract.
And I’ll show you Fleming versus Nestor that says otherwise
:thumbsup:
-
You have no idea what these programs are. And it’s not your fault because most people don’t. They are not investments. They are not a trust fund. It is a Tax. Period. End of discussion.
And the government is required by no such law to pay you back that money
Most people have no idea what Social Security is. And even when you explain it to it, they still refuse to learn
And even though MAGAS like to blame illegal immigrants for every single problem in this country, even if we had no illegal immigration, these programs would still be facing insolvency. Very few illegal immigrants are receiving Social Security benefits because legally, they can’t
Yes, I get that it's a tax. That's not a revelation. However it IS $$ directly taken out of MY check before I even got my hands on it. Illegal ponzi scheme, whatever, you want to call it -- we were told that it was for SS. So, it IS MY money. You are never going to convince me that it isn't.
As for ILLEGALS collecting -- you betcha. The notion that they don't is false. They also can collect SSI.
-
:thumbsup:
Seriously? A contract? Look on the flippin' paycheck stubs -- you see amounts withdrawn and where they're supposed to go.
-
Seriously? A contract? Look on the flippin' paycheck stubs -- you see amounts withdrawn and where they're supposed to go.
You just don't get it. You see money taken out of your paycheck for regular income tax, too. Does that mean its still your money? No, it doesn't.
You really need to stop believing the lies of liberals.
It is not your money, any more than the regular income tax is still your money, once the tax has been collected.
And social security benefits are nothing more than government-funded welfare benefits. I really don't get why that is such a big problem for some people.
It would still be "your money" if you had a legally enforceable contract that gave you legal recourse to that money.
There is no contract with the federal government for social security welfare benefits. And therefore, you have no property interest in those benefits, and nothing to call "yours".
Read the law; stop believing the lies of liberals.
-
Yes, I get that it's a tax. That's not a revelation. However it IS $$ directly taken out of MY check before I even got my hands on it. Illegal ponzi scheme, whatever, you want to call it -- we were told that it was for SS. So, it IS MY money. You are never going to convince me that it isn't.
As for ILLEGALS collecting -- you betcha. The notion that they don't is false. They also can collect SSI.
Yes, you were told that it was for some sort of "insurance" program. You were also told that "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" - did you believe that lie, too?
-
Again, show me the contract where you paid into that therefore it’s your money that you’re entitled to get back. I’m not talking about what a politician promised. I’m talking about a contract with the government you made that you will get that money back in full one day.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that is not your property that you’re entitled to get back because you paid into it. I’ll post the ruling if you’d like.
It doesn’t matter what you think it is or what anyone will convince you of. What matters is what the law says
-
So, it IS MY money. You are never going to convince me that it isn't.
So the law itself won’t even convince you :shrug: :
If the government announced today that Social Security and Medicare were too expensive, and therefore, we are now getting rid of them starting today, you would have no legal recourse
-
Yes, you were told that it was for some sort of "insurance" program. You were also told that "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" - did you believe that lie, too?
No, I was never told it was some sort of insurance program. *****rollingeyes***** Come on. This is getting ridiculous.
On a payroll check stub it shows how much $$ is being deducted for SS, Medicare/SSI. So you tell me ... if it shows on paycheck stubs where the money is supposed to go and it's arbitrarily taken out of one's check, whose money is it? It certainly isn't their checks that $$ is being taken out of.
IT. IS. MY. MONEY.
Next.
-
No, I was never told it was some sort of insurance program. *****rollingeyes***** Come on. This is getting ridiculous.
On a payroll check stub it shows how much $$ is being deducted for SS, Medicare/SSI. So you tell me ... if it shows on paycheck stubs where the money is supposed to go and it's arbitrarily taken out of one's check, whose money is it? It certainly isn't their checks that $$ is being taken out of.
IT. IS. MY. MONEY.
Next.
It is your money. But once the government takes it out of your check, there is nothing whatsoever that says you’re entitled to get it back.
You have every right to believe whatever you want. It’s just the law says otherwise.
-
Again, show me the contract where you paid into that therefore it’s your money that you’re entitled to get back. I’m not talking about what a politician promised. I’m talking about a contract with the government you made that you will get that money back in full one day.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that is not your property that you’re entitled to get back because you paid into it. I’ll post the ruling if you’d like.
It doesn’t matter what you think it is or what anyone will convince you of. What matters is what the law says
What matter is the $$ is arbitrarily taken out and payroll check stubs indicate what those deductions are for. I don't need a flippin' contract.
Again, one last time. Regardless of ruling ... IT IS MY MONEY.
They also ruled for gay rights, etc....so are we supposed to bow down now and let them change the sex of our children -- because of law -- laws that have run amuck. Just one example. SCOTUS rewrote law rather than ruling on the constitutionality.
Nope. Not going to convince me otherwise.
Next.
-
What matter is the $$ is arbitrarily taken out and payroll check stubs indicate what those deductions are for. I don't need a flippin' contract.
Again, one last time. Regardless of ruling ... IT IS MY MONEY.
They also ruled for gay rights, etc....so are we supposed to bow down now and let them change the sex of our children -- because of law -- laws that have run amuck. Just one example. SCOTUS rewrote law rather than ruling on the constitutionality.
Nope. Not going to convince me otherwise.
Next.
Well, you’re entitled not to be convinced. It’s just the law says otherwise. What you believe or what politicians told you doesn’t matter. What matters is what the law says. Show me the part of the law that says that what you pay in the Social Security and Medicare you’re entitled to get back. And the Supreme Court did not rewrite the law in 1960. They just reaffirmed it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
Claiming something doesn’t make it so. No one’s denying that it’s your money that you’ve earned that the government is taking out of your check. It’s just once the government takes that money out, there is no law whatsoever says you’re entitled to get that back. If you don’t like the law, then you try to work to change it. You don’t just simply say the law doesn’t apply because your personal opinions matter more.
I could make the argument that I’m entitled to go 20 miles over the speed limit on my local road because I pay taxes for those roads and I pay license fees but the law says I can’t.
-
What matter is the $$ is arbitrarily taken out and payroll check stubs indicate what those deductions are for. I don't need a flippin' contract.
Again, one last time. Regardless of ruling ... IT IS MY MONEY.
They also ruled for gay rights, etc....so are we supposed to bow down now and let them change the sex of our children -- because of law -- laws that have run amuck. Just one example. SCOTUS rewrote law rather than ruling on the constitutionality.
Nope. Not going to convince me otherwise.
Next.
It stopped being "your money" the moment the government collected it. S.S. is and always has been a Ponzi scheme. When it was first started most people didn't live long enough to collect much if any of what they paid in. Why do you think it is both state and federal employees don't have to pay into S.S. and instead have pensions based on actual investment funds?
-
No, I was never told it was some sort of insurance program. *****rollingeyes***** Come on. This is getting ridiculous.
On a payroll check stub it shows how much $$ is being deducted for SS, Medicare/SSI. So you tell me ... if it shows on paycheck stubs where the money is supposed to go and it's arbitrarily taken out of one's check, whose money is it? It certainly isn't their checks that $$ is being taken out of.
IT. IS. MY. MONEY.
Next.
IT. IS. NOT. YOUR. MONEY.
The money is withheld from your paycheck because the Internal Revenue Code requires employers to withhold the employee portion of the payroll tax from the employee's wages and remit the tax to the IRS. IRC § 3102.
All taxes collected and remitted to the government are to be "collected by the Secretary and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal-revenue collections." IRC § 3501.
Finally, the tax imposed on the employee is an income tax: "In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to 6.2 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by the individual with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b))." IRC § 3101(a).
So, what the law - the binding, enforceable at the wrong end of a gun, if you like, rule - says is that (a) if you're an employee, an additional income tax is imposed on you (a tax on your income), IRC § 3101, (b) that tax is withheld from your wages by your employer and remitted to the government, IRC § 3102, and (c) the taxes remitted by your employer are to be collected by the Secretary of the Treasury (or his delegate, i.e., the IRS) and paid into the U.S. Treasury as internal revenue, IRC § 3501.
That is the law; all the rest of it is empty labeling and lies that were told to you to get you to swallow this regressive new tax.
-
This is what’s going to be the major obstacle to any meaningful reforms. The idea that people believe that it was their money that was taken out of their check to be given back to them in the future.
-
This is what’s going to be the major obstacle to any meaningful reforms. The idea that people believe that it was their money that was taken out of their check to be given back to them in the future.
That is why FDR and the progressives started the lie in the first place, when the law was enacted in the 1930s. And it is why the dems/libs are absolutely opposed to making it a means-tested program - as if Jack Welch really needed that extra $1,800 each month - because it simply maintains and reinforces the false narrative that social security is some sort of vested retirement benefit, like the one a person gets when they pay into their employer's private pension plan or 401(k) plan.
-
WE don't have ANY money! What we do have is a fiat currency backed by NOTHING other than the FULL "faith and credit" of our government!
Since the advent of the income tax in 1913 we have seen tax rates as high as 90%!
-
That is why FDR and the progressives started the lie in the first place, when the law was enacted in the 1930s. And it is why the dems/libs are absolutely opposed to making it a means-tested program - as if Jack Welch really needed that extra $1,800 each month - because it simply maintains and reinforces the false narrative that social security is some sort of vested retirement benefit, like the one a person gets when they pay into their employer's private pension plan or 401(k) plan.
You’re not even promised to get back everything that you invested in an IRA or 401(k). The market determines that. Why is it that people believe that empty promises from politicians, in total defiance of the law itself, has more weight?
-
You’re not even promised to get back everything that you invested in an IRA or 401(k). The market determines that. Why is it that people believe that empty promises from politicians, in total defiance of the law itself, has more weight?
Yes, but you have a vested property interest in your IRA or 401(k) plan that you do not have in social security. A participant in one of the old-school defined benefit pension plans also had a vested property interest in the plan that entitled the participant to a certain level of benefits (subject, of course, to whatever language was in the pension plan contract documents themselves).
The interest one has in one's IRA or 401(k) is not an empty promise from a politician; by contrast, the interest one has in so-called social security is.
-
Yes, you were told that it was for some sort of "insurance" program. You were also told that "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" - did you believe that lie, too?
Well, while we are at it, my Social Security card says "Not for Identification purposes" right on the card.
-
Well, while we are at it, my Social Security card says "Not for Identification purposes" right on the card.
And ....?
-
Well, while we are at it, my Social Security card says "Not for Identification purposes" right on the card.
Wink wink...
-
Social Security numbers were first issued in 1936 -- "for the sole purpose" of tracking the earnings history of workers for benefits, according to the Social Security Administration.
So this is taxation without representation. I think someone started a revolution to-ahem-stamp out this practice. But I don't remember who or when...
I was a paper boy for forty years. They withheld five cents per year. I want my two dollars. I WANT MY TWO DOLLARS!!!
JG Wentworth, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
You can't get a drivers license without your SS card. :pondering:
-
So this is taxation without representation. I think someone started a revolution to-ahem-stamp out this practice. But I don't remember who or when...
I was a paper boy for forty years. They withheld five cents per year. I want my two dollars. I WANT MY TWO DOLLARS!!!
JG Wentworth, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
You can't get a drivers license without your SS card. :pondering:
Sure you can, depending on what state you're in.
In terms of the original function of the social security number - it is there to limit your benefits, it does not act as a guarantee that you would get any benefits at all.
-
WE don't have ANY money! What we do have is a fiat currency backed by NOTHING other than the FULL "faith and credit" of our government!
Since the advent of the income tax in 1913 we have seen tax rates as high as 90%!
Exactly. Full faith and credit of our government. Our economy is collapsing. Our dollar is becoming devalued.
We need to go back to the gold standard.
-
Again, one last time. Regardless of ruling ... IT IS MY MONEY.
YOUR MONEY got spent the second it hit the US Treasury. Good luck finding it.
It was tax money. The government took it. The government spent it. End of story.
-
I want my two dollars. I WANT MY TWO DOLLARS!!!
Cash.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4dQMBmC.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=9fdde79c7d8232ff235ef8340eff72cd4bfcf6ce5afacf1bfb24dff5912b6cef&ipo=images)
-
What matter is the $$ is arbitrarily taken out and payroll check stubs indicate what those deductions are for. I don't need a flippin' contract.
Again, one last time. Regardless of ruling ... IT IS MY MONEY.
@LMAO is right. It WAS your money. You were TAXED. Now it is Uncle Nanny's money.
That's how taxes work. :shrug:
-
@LMAO is right. It WAS your money. You were TAXED. Now it is Uncle Nanny's money.
That's how taxes work. :shrug:
Basically.
-
Well, Social Security and Medicare are part of the picture. COVID didn't kill us geezers off, so that was not the solution and if anyone was suspicious of the jabs, it was boomers.
But Social Security and Medicare are only part of the so-called entitlement picture. Folks paid into those and should get something back.
Well that's what folks think, but legally, it is a tax. And that's all it is, bifurcated from the pay-out side. The payout could be stricken from the books and not effect the tax.
There is another big chunk of the budget that goes to welfare, all sorts of food programs, and to medicaid, subsidized housing, etc. An awful lot of those recipients haven't paid in.
And then there are the unaccountable fortunes being spent on Millions of illegal aliens just during this administration.
I think there's a lot of fat to trim before people come after granny's Social Security check.
It's all the same. It all fosters dependency, limits rugged individualism, and brings the people under the direct power of the government. Indirectly, the end game is the destruction of the middle, and the establishment of peasantry. Because that is what it always does.
-
What matter is the $$ is arbitrarily taken out and payroll check stubs indicate what those deductions are for. I don't need a flippin' contract.
Again, one last time. Regardless of ruling ... IT IS MY MONEY.
They also ruled for gay rights, etc....so are we supposed to bow down now and let them change the sex of our children -- because of law -- laws that have run amuck. Just one example. SCOTUS rewrote law rather than ruling on the constitutionality.
Nope. Not going to convince me otherwise.
Next.
I totally agree! If it were a "general tax" it would have been rolled into FICA. There would be no confusion.
Did the Feds lie since the 1930s? Most likely. But as I have said before, this is the freakin' Federal Government...not Bernie Madoff. They need to stand behind their promises. There are plenty of other areas that can stand reform. That being said...SS/Medicare need to be reformed in some way that is fair to all.
-
Yes, but you have a vested property interest in your IRA or 401(k) plan that you do not have in social security. A participant in one of the old-school defined benefit pension plans also had a vested property interest in the plan that entitled the participant to a certain level of benefits (subject, of course, to whatever language was in the pension plan contract documents themselves).
The interest one has in one's IRA or 401(k) is not an empty promise from a politician; by contrast, the interest one has in so-called social security is.
The major difference being...a person chooses to participate in an IRA/401K. SS is not a choice.
-
The major difference being...a person chooses to participate in an IRA/401K. SS is not a choice.
Not relevant.
An IRA or a 401(k) is a property interest - the contributor has a contract with the custodian (bank or other financial institution) pursuant to which the beneficiary has the right to withdraw the value of the account, with certain tax consequences applying depending on, for example, the age of the beneficiary at the time of the withdrawal, and depending on vesting rules for the employer portion of any contribution.
The money that is withheld from an employee's wages for social security is payment of a tax that is due and imposed on the employee. The benefits under social security legislation are nothing more than a welfare benefit granted to individuals who have worked for a certain number of years - i.e., no benefits until you have a certain length of work history - but there is no vested property interest in those benefits.
-
Now... If the collected monies were held in bonds, in your name... That would not be a tax.
-
Not relevant.
An IRA or a 401(k) is a property interest - the contributor has a contract with the custodian (bank or other financial institution) pursuant to which the beneficiary has the right to withdraw the value of the account, with certain tax consequences applying depending on, for example, the age of the beneficiary at the time of the withdrawal, and depending on vesting rules for the employer portion of any contribution.
The money that is withheld from an employee's wages for social security is payment of a tax that is due and imposed on the employee. The benefits under social security legislation are nothing more than a welfare benefit granted to individuals who have worked for a certain number of years - i.e., no benefits until you have a certain length of work history - but there is no vested property interest in those benefits.
I'm sorry, but I consider it relevant.
-
Now... If the collected monies were held in bonds, in your name... That would not be a tax.
Not necessarily. The money could be collected as a tax, and then placed into a bond fund for the benefit of the taxpayer, only to be distributed to the taxpayer upon retirement, with the property interest in the bond fund vested in the taxpayer.
The net effect would be a compulsory contribution to a retirement fund.
-
I'm sorry, but I consider it relevant.
That's nice, but unless you can provide a basis for why the difference should be relevant, the fact that you feel it's relevant is just that, your personal subjective feeling.
Personally, I feel that the Moon should be made of green cheese. My wishes, however, don't make it so.
-
Not necessarily. The money could be collected as a tax, and then placed into a bond fund for the benefit of the taxpayer, only to be distributed to the taxpayer upon retirement, with the property interest in the bond fund vested in the taxpayer.
The net effect would be a compulsory contribution to a retirement fund.
Right... But it's still YOUR money and YOUR dividend... secured by the bond instrument, all the way along. There is an argument there.
Money taxed and dumped into the general fund... well that's just a tax.
-
That's nice, but unless you can provide a basis for why the difference should be relevant, the fact that you feel it's relevant is just that, your personal subjective feeling.
Personally, I feel that the Moon should be made of green cheese. My wishes, however, don't make it so.
Heck @kamagi for all I know the moon is made of green cheese.lol
I know better than to get in a shootin' match with a person that seems to have a firm handle on the law. :laugh:
In an earlier post you illustrated the differences between a 401K/IRA and SS.
A 401K/IRA is voluntary. Withdrawals can have certain tax consequences. However, people that have not contributed have no access to those funds.
SS in not voluntary. People that have not contributed have access to those funds. And as you have stated, there are restrictions on the work requirement for others.
My objection is not to the legal aspect. Of course it wasn't Constitutional. But it was enacted to law under a certain premise. So I guess my gripe is the moral aspect of the Feds taking money from people under false pretenses (I know moral and government is an oxymoron).
So I'll stick with my belief. If the tax was not intended for that reason, it should have been rolled into FICA and not have separate lines on a paycheck and a W-2.
-
Heck @kamagi for all I know the moon is made of green cheese.lol
I know better than to get in a shootin' match with a person that seems to have a firm handle on the law. :laugh:
In an earlier post you illustrated the differences between a 401K/IRA and SS.
A 401K/IRA is voluntary. Withdrawals can have certain tax consequences. However, people that have not contributed have no access to those funds.
SS in not voluntary. People that have not contributed have access to those funds. And as you have stated, there are restrictions on the work requirement for others.
My objection is not to the legal aspect. Of course it wasn't Constitutional. But it was enacted to law under a certain premise. So I guess my gripe is the moral aspect of the Feds taking money from people under false pretenses (I know moral and government is an oxymoron).
So I'll stick with my belief. If the tax was not intended for that reason, it should have been rolled into FICA and not have separate lines on a paycheck and a W-2.
Agree @berdi
-
It’s like reparations. If people believe their own money by the government, they will entrenched themselves into that belief.
And there is a significant number of people who are getting more in Social Security benefits then they paid into
But it shows how difficult any reforms will be when even a good number of conservatives believe the lie
@LMAO
You should have written "damn near everybody who was getting it prior to the left deciding to even give it to illegal aliens."
As for even those entitled to it getting more than they paid in,there is no secret about this. It's called "inflation".
Remeber back in the mid 60's,when you could buy a new Ford Mustang for around 1500 bucks? Hell,I bought a new Torino GT with the 428 hi-po engine and 4-speed transmission when I came back from VN in late 1969 for $2500,and that included a 5 year 50,000 mile warranty. It probably costs more than that today to just insure a new Mustang.
-
Yes, I get that it's a tax. That's not a revelation. However it IS $$ directly taken out of MY check before I even got my hands on it. Illegal ponzi scheme, whatever, you want to call it -- we were told that it was for SS. So, it IS MY money. You are never going to convince me that it isn't.
As for ILLEGALS collecting -- you betcha. The notion that they don't is false. They also can collect SSI.
@libertybele
They are not SUPPOSED to be able to collect SS or any OTHER benefit from the government,but the leftists in Congress wrote legislation to allow them to get this money in order to buy their votes. THIS is how the Left will end up destroying the Right and end up turning the US into a leftist police state with no more public elections or public control over anything.
Think "Original Soviet Union,Part 2",and you have it covered. Don't worry,THIS time it's going to work. HONEST!</S>
-
You just don't get it. You see money taken out of your paycheck for regular income tax, too. Does that mean its still your money? No, it doesn't.
You really need to stop believing the lies of liberals.
It is not your money, any more than the regular income tax is still your money, once the tax has been collected.
And social security benefits are nothing more than government-funded welfare benefits. I really don't get why that is such a big problem for some people.
It would still be "your money" if you had a legally enforceable contract that gave you legal recourse to that money.
There is no contract with the federal government for social security welfare benefits. And therefore, you have no property interest in those benefits, and nothing to call "yours".
Read the law; stop believing the lies of liberals.
@Kamaji
It's not "welfare" if you spent your entire working life paying into it. It is a retirement plan for workers too old to work any more.
Or at least that is what it USED to be.
-
So the law itself won’t even convince you :shrug: :
If the government announced today that Social Security and Medicare were too expensive, and therefore, we are now getting rid of them starting today, you would have no legal recourse
@LMAO
The government committing a crime doesn't make it legal OR ethical.
-
No, I was never told it was some sort of insurance program. *****rollingeyes***** Come on. This is getting ridiculous.
On a payroll check stub it shows how much $$ is being deducted for SS, Medicare/SSI. So you tell me ... if it shows on paycheck stubs where the money is supposed to go and it's arbitrarily taken out of one's check, whose money is it? It certainly isn't their checks that $$ is being taken out of.
IT. IS. MY. MONEY.
Next.
@libertybele
It is SUPPOSED to BE "Your money",and was until the DNC took control of Congress and decided to use it to buy the votes of illegal aliens so they could stay in power.
Morally and ethically,it is STILL "YOUR" (and MY) money,but good luck finding a lawyer or law firm that is willing to go broke while beating their heads against an moveable wall while trying to even find a court to take the case.
-
Right... But it's still YOUR money and YOUR dividend... secured by the bond instrument, all the way along. There is an argument there.
Money taxed and dumped into the general fund... well that's just a tax.
True enough.
-
How do we get around the government touting this as a retirement fund?
-
How do we get around the government touting this as a retirement fund?
Abolish the IRS.
-
GWB tried to start to fix this $hit in his second term and Barney Frank (Q-MA) killed it.
-
I still see the "it's my money and retirement fund" folks still think their feelings on the matter override the actual law
-
@LMAO
The government committing a crime doesn't make it legal OR ethical.
Were's the crime?
-
How do we get around the government touting this as a retirement fund?
By removing the government's access to the funds.
Government can mandate that 14% of everyone's income be invested into a long-term fiduciary fund similar to a 401(K). Employees can track their funds, make changes to investment categories, and watch their funds grow. They can even add to these funds beyond the 14% threshold should they so choose. They can begin drawing on these funds once they reach retirement age as they see fit, with an annuity option included. And most importantly of all, when they die, their families inherit all unspent funds.
-
GWB tried to start to fix this $hit in his second term and Barney Frank (Q-MA) killed it.
Yep.
-
Abolish the IRS.
@libertybele
You can't possibly be serious. How would we be able to fund the government if that happened?
You can't possibly believe it would make sense to go on an "honor system" to collect taxes.
-
Were's the crime?
@LMAO
Using revenue that came from taxes designed to fund SS for other purposes is/would be a crime .
-
@LMAO
Using revenue that came from taxes designed to fund SS for other purposes is/would be a crime .
Show me the law that says that
-
It's not "welfare" if you spent your entire working life paying into it. It is a retirement plan for workers too old to work any more.
Or at least that is what it USED to be.
You paid taxes to support people who are now dead. That money is gone. The working age population could vote to cut you off at any time. Might as well face the ugly truth - it’s a Ponzi Scheme. I have never understood the affection people have for SSA. It’s something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.
-
@libertybele
You can't possibly be serious. How would we be able to fund the government if that happened?
You can't possibly believe it would make sense to go on an "honor system" to collect taxes.
??? It's one thing to pay taxes on goods, property, etc., and it's quite another to have money taken out of your check for your labor.
That is what I object to. You get paid to work a job; that is your labor...to be taxed for working is ridiculous -- again, regardless of law, to be taxed on your labor is plain absurd. The gov't didn't lay those bricks, nail shingles, cut wood to build houses, paint, answer the phone, serve dinner, bake a cake, clean homes, clean a sewer, work on an oil rig, teach a class, drive a bus, etc. However money is automatically taken out for your labor before you see a dime. So -- $$ is taken out for your labor. Think about it. On your paycheck stubs for your labor it indicates $$ automatically deducted going into FICA and Medicare. 7.6% of money that you worked for is automatically deducted.
So, don't tell me it isn't MY money. The gov't didn't do my darn job.
That is just plain WRONG!
-
??? It's one thing to pay taxes on goods, property, etc., and it's quite another to have money taken out of your check for your labor.
That is what I object to. You get paid to work a job; that is your labor...to be taxed for working is ridiculous -- again, regardless of law, to be taxed on your labor is plain absurd. The gov't didn't lay those bricks, nail shingles, cut wood to build houses, paint, answer the phone, serve dinner, bake a cake, clean homes, clean a sewer, work on an oil rig, teach a class, drive a bus, etc. However money is automatically taken out for your labor before you see a dime. So -- $$ is taken out for your labor. Think about it. On your paycheck stubs for your labor it indicates $$ automatically deducted going into FICA and Medicare. 7.6% of money that you worked for is automatically deducted.
So, don't tell me it isn't MY money. The gov't didn't do my darn job.
That is just plain WRONG!
Oh you think it's bad as an employee, try being an employer...
-
On your paycheck stubs for your labor it indicates $$ automatically deducted going into FICA and Medicare. 7.6% of money that you worked for is automatically deducted.
Try 15%. They just didn't tell you about the other 7.6% of your money they took.
So, don't tell me it isn't MY money. The gov't didn't do my darn job.
It WAS your money. Government took it at the point of a gun and spent it. Immediately. It's gone. It was not put away for your retirement. At no time was there ever a plan put in place to do so.
-
Weren't that what Al Gore's lockboxes were about?
-
Show me the law that says that
@LMAO
Show me the law that says it is legal.
-
You paid taxes to support people who are now dead. That money is gone. The working age population could vote to cut you off at any time. Might as well face the ugly truth - it’s a Ponzi Scheme. I have never understood the affection people have for SSA. It’s something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.
@cato potatoe
Which means you grew up privleged,not poor. I remember watching my father get on his knees in the bathtub and pull some of his own teeth (I think it was 3 or them) one weekend because he couldn't afford to lose a half-day of work,or maybe a full day,to go to a dentist. He used a pair of pump pliers and a nut pick.
The day he got so old he had to quit working was the same day he and my mother had no income.
The first place I can remember living was in an abandoned camper trailer in the woods because my family couldn't afford to pay rent while he looked for a job and got his first paycheck. Even then,the house we rented after he did get a job didn't have running water . It had a hand pump that had to be primed. It didn't have a toilet either. It had an outhouse. Got cold in the winter because the only heat came from the kitchen stove,and we couldn't afford to run it unless my mother was cooking,or first thing in the morning when we all got out of our beds. We lived there for a year or two before we could afford to move into a good house with central heat and running hot water.
My older brother (he was 12 at the time) came down with Type 1 diabetes and spend time in a hospital recovering,and of course we didn't have any health insurance. I don't think many working-class families did back in the early 50's.
He finally had to quit working as a carpenter when he was in his 60's,and starting drawing SS.
There was nothing remarkable about his circumstances back then. It was common for working-class people.
I am sure there are others here with similar family histories.
-
??? It's one thing to pay taxes on goods, property, etc., and it's quite another to have money taken out of your check for your labor.
That is what I object to. You get paid to work a job; that is your labor...to be taxed for working is ridiculous -- again, regardless of law, to be taxed on your labor is plain absurd. The gov't didn't lay those bricks, nail shingles, cut wood to build houses, paint, answer the phone, serve dinner, bake a cake, clean homes, clean a sewer, work on an oil rig, teach a class, drive a bus, etc. However money is automatically taken out for your labor before you see a dime. So -- $$ is taken out for your labor. Think about it. On your paycheck stubs for your labor it indicates $$ automatically deducted going into FICA and Medicare. 7.6% of money that you worked for is automatically deducted.
So, don't tell me it isn't MY money. The gov't didn't do my darn job.
That is just plain WRONG!
@libertybele
Ok,so WHERE was/is the government supposed to get all the money to build roads,sewers,water systems,etc,etc,etc,if not from tax money?
Simple question,and I expect an answer given that you are so convinced they don't need to tax citizens.
-
@LMAO
Show me the law that says it is legal.
You made the claim that spending Social Security money on other things outside of SS was a crime. Show me the law that says that.
I will help you out. There is nothing that says that money collected for Social Security must all be spent on Social Security payments.
-
For those that are claiming that the law on SS is subservient to their feelings, and that they’re entitled to that money they paid into Social Security, what legal recourse do you believe you have if tomorrow the government said we’re taking Social Security money and we’re going to invest it in green energy?
Answer… You would be shit out of luck if they did that. That’s why I’ll never understand why people have so much faith in government to take care of them.
-
@LMAO
As for even those entitled to it getting more than they paid in,there is no secret about this. It's called "inflation".
That is not the reason why many people are getting more in SS benefits than they paid into it. It’s laughable you think that the reason is inflation.
-
It’s mind-boggling how people think that their personal beliefs and opinions somehow overrides the law
Nobody is entitled to Social Security benefits. I don’t care what a politician tells you. Barack Obama claimed that you would still get to keep your insurance plan under his Obamacare. But if you read the ObamaCare law, and the requirements it places on insurance, there was no way that most people would be able to keep their plans
It didn’t matter what Obama told people or what he promised people. What mattersed is what the law said.
-
Nobody is entitled
There's the truth of it. There is no entitlement. Other then the protection of our rights.
-
Which means you grew up privleged,not poor.
Nope, not privileged like con artist Donald Trump, who prefers to hire third world migrants, but also delights in stiffing people like your father. The stories are endless.
Social Security is a rather successful scam which has kept the bulk of Americans desperate for a monthly check, and fearful of any changes to the law. Most of them have no financial independence because they were required to participate in a Ponzi scheme.
-
Social Security is a rather successful scam which has kept the bulk of Americans desperate for a monthly check, and fearful of any changes to the law. Most of them have no financial independence because they were required to participate in a Ponzi scheme.
Not just fearful, but entitled. You can see it here. We have posters that believe that it’s their money that was taken out of their check and put away for them for their future and no amount of telling them that that’s not the law is convincing them. You can’t talk people out of their fantasies.
-
Nope, not privileged like con artist Donald Trump, who prefers to hire third world migrants, but also delights in stiffing people like your father. The stories are endless.
Social Security is a rather successful scam which has kept the bulk of Americans desperate for a monthly check, and fearful of any changes to the law. Most of them have no financial independence because they were required to participate in a Ponzi scheme.
The ONLY difference between what Bernie Madoff did and what our government continually does is government backing.
Somebody please point me to the constitutional language that authorizes government run insurance schemes, I can't find it.
-
@libertybele
Ok,so WHERE was/is the government supposed to get all the money to build roads,sewers,water systems,etc,etc,etc,if not from tax money?
Simple question,and I expect an answer given that you are so convinced they don't need to tax citizens.
User fees.
There are some things that need to get funded beyond that, especially defense. But those things should not amount to more than 10 percent of GDP, maybe a bit more in war time. Ten percent of GDP could easily be collected with a VAT, national sales tax or flat income tax of some kind. There is no need for the kind of intrusion into our personal lives that the IRS engages in.
-
User fees.
There are some things that need to get funded beyond that, especially defense. But those things should not amount to more than 10 percent of GDP, maybe a bit more in war time. Ten percent of GDP could easily be collected with a VAT, national sales tax or flat income tax of some kind. There is no need for the kind of intrusion into our personal lives that the IRS engages in.
I'm all in for the method universally endorsed by our founders. Taxes on articles of consumption only!
-
Not just fearful, but entitled. You can see it here. We have posters that believe that it’s their money that was taken out of their check and put away for them for their future and no amount of telling them that that’s not the law is convincing them. You can’t talk people out of their fantasies.
Fantasy? How is it a fantasy that every single paycheck money is taken out and how is it a fantasy that on that paycheck $$ is appropriated to FICA and Medicare? Thinking that it doesn't happen or that there is some justification to tax me on my labor is fantasy.
-
User fees.
There are some things that need to get funded beyond that, especially defense. But those things should not amount to more than 10 percent of GDP, maybe a bit more in war time. Ten percent of GDP could easily be collected with a VAT, national sales tax or flat income tax of some kind. There is no need for the kind of intrusion into our personal lives that the IRS engages in.
Amen!
-
@libertybele
Ok,so WHERE was/is the government supposed to get all the money to build roads,sewers,water systems,etc,etc,etc,if not from tax money?
Simple question,and I expect an answer given that you are so convinced they don't need to tax citizens.
@sneakypete if you read my post I mention tax on goods -- again what I have a problem with is being taxed on my labor.
-
The ONLY difference between what Bernie Madoff did and what our government continually does is government backing.
Also with Madoff, you had a choice. You didn't have to 'invest' with him if you didn't want to. But with Social Security, there is no such choice. You are forced to invest at the point of a gun.
If Madoff deserved prison, then many times more so for those who plague us with Social Security, the greatest guarantor of cyclical poverty that our government has ever engaged in.
-
Also with Madoff, you had a choice. You didn't have to 'invest' with him if you didn't want to. But with Social Security, there is no such choice. You are forced to invest at the point of a gun.
If Madoff deserved prison, then many times more so for those who plague us with Social Security, the greatest guarantor of cyclical poverty that our government has ever engaged in.
The social security payroll tax is the most regressive tax in existence. If you earn any amount you pay it!
-
The social security payroll tax is the most regressive tax in existence. If you earn any amount you pay it!
And once you earn above a certain amount, you stop paying the social security portion of the payroll tax (the medicare tax does not have a cap), which makes it doubly regressive.
-
Fantasy? How is it a fantasy that every single paycheck money is taken out and how is it a fantasy that on that paycheck $$ is appropriated to FICA and Medicare? Thinking that it doesn't happen or that there is some justification to tax me on my labor is fantasy.
:beer: We finally agree on something, lately!! :laugh:
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 :silly:
-
And once you earn above a certain amount, you stop paying the social security portion of the payroll tax (the medicare tax does not have a cap), which makes it doubly regressive.
Another way it violates equal protection is by allowing exemptions for government workers. If you work for a state or local government that has its own retirement fund, you don't have to pay social security taxes.
-
Another way it violates equal protection is by allowing exemptions for government workers. If you work for a state or local government that has its own retirement fund, you don't have to pay social security taxes.
That's not a violation of equal protection.
-
That's not a violation of equal protection.
A public school teacher can opt out while a private school teacher cannot? That violates equal protection. If one person can voluntarily opt out, then anyone should be able to opt out.
-
A public school teacher can opt out while a private school teacher cannot? That violates equal protection. If one person can voluntarily opt out, then anyone should be able to opt out.
No, it does not. Why? Why should everyone be able to opt out? That might make good policy - one could debate that - but equal protection is a Constitutional right, and not a matter of judgment in the wisdom, or lack, of a certain policy.
-
:beer: We finally agree on something, lately!! :laugh:
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 :silly:
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!
-
Why? Why should everyone be able to opt out?
It's called 'Equal Protection'.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/)
-
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 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/)
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
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
Merely not being subject to a government imposition to which someone else is subject is not a privilege. To say otherwise is to engage in the same sort of stupid gamesmanship the left engages in when it says that whites are privileged because they aren't subject to the same sorts of scrutiny or economic disadvantage that blacks are subject to.
Geez.
It's so fascinating to see people start exposing their liberal panties when their personal prejudices and biases get questioned.
-
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.
Uh, no. Circumstances matter. Government shouldn't require everyone to get a CDL simply because it requires truck drivers to get one. Not everyone will operate under the circumstance of driving a truck.
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.
That would depend on the circumstance. What is the "legitimate governmental objective"?
-
If SS were to go to the chopping block, so should ALL fed gov pensions.
-
Merely not being subject to a government imposition to which someone else is subject is not a privilege.
Based on the very definition of privilege just presented to you, it is. Is the American Heritage Dictionary wrong?
To say otherwise is to engage in the same sort of stupid gamesmanship the left engages in when it says that whites are privileged because they aren't subject to the same sorts of scrutiny or economic disadvantage that blacks are subject to.
The primary flaw to this argument is that liberals make the claim without providing any evidence to back it up. Just saying that whites actually have privilege (as opposed to the much weaker example you've given, i.e. calling them "privileged") is a totally empty claim without concrete examples of that privilege. Contrast that with my argument where I have specifically identified the 'privilege'. Nice try though.
Geez.
It's so fascinating to see people start exposing their liberal panties when their personal prejudices and biases get questioned.
Let's see. You are the one moving goal posts and offering strawman arguments, yet I'm the liberal? Yeah, right.
-
If SS were to go to the chopping block, so should ALL fed gov pensions.
And 90% of federal government jobs.
-
Based on the very definition of privilege just presented to you, it is. Is the American Heritage Dictionary wrong?
The primary flaw to this argument is that liberals make the claim without providing any evidence to back it up. Just saying that whites actually have privilege (as opposed to the much weaker example you've given, i.e. calling them "privileged") is a totally empty claim without concrete examples of that privilege. Contrast that with my argument where I have specifically identified the 'privilege'. Nice try though.
Let's see. You are the one moving goal posts and offering strawman arguments, yet I'm the liberal? Yeah, right.
:facepalm2:
Whatever chief. You run along and play with your personal, idiosyncratic beliefs about what is, and what is not, "equal protection". You're wrong, but so long as you're kept from the levers of power, we can affirm your condition rather than trying to cure it.
-
And you can go on pretending that granting special privileges to government workers by granting them immunity from a 14% income tax somehow is consistent with ethical universalization and equal protection for all.
-
Nope, not privileged like con artist Donald Trump, who prefers to hire third world migrants, but also delights in stiffing people like your father. The stories are endless.
@cato potatoe
Ahhh,there is the class warfare thing again.
-
Not just fearful, but entitled. You can see it here. We have posters that believe that it’s their money that was taken out of their check and put away for them for their future and no amount of telling them that that’s not the law is convincing them. You can’t talk people out of their fantasies.
@LMAO
That's because you are so full of Biden that it drips out your ears.
-
User fees.
There are some things that need to get funded beyond that, especially defense. But those things should not amount to more than 10 percent of GDP, maybe a bit more in war time. Ten percent of GDP could easily be collected with a VAT, national sales tax or flat income tax of some kind. There is no need for the kind of intrusion into our personal lives that the IRS engages in.
@massadvj
ROFLMAO!
i suppose you would be happy to wait in line each morning to pay the toll to use the road you drive on to get to work,and then pay the toll again that afternoon on your way home?
-
Fantasy? How is it a fantasy that every single paycheck money is taken out and how is it a fantasy that on that paycheck $$ is appropriated to FICA and Medicare? Thinking that it doesn't happen or that there is some justification to tax me on my labor is fantasy.
@libertybele
These guys have a favorite fantasy,and they just are NOT going to allow reality to get in the way of it.
-
@libertybele
These guys have a favorite fantasy,and they just are NOT going to allow reality to get in the way of it.
888high58888
-
@sneakypete if you read my post I mention tax on goods -- again what I have a problem with is being taxed on my labor.
@libertybele
I fail to see any ACTUAL difference between the two. Either way you are STILL being taxed on an EVERY DAY BASIS,and my best GUESS is it would be at a higher rate than the one you are being taxed at today.
-
Another way it violates equal protection is by allowing exemptions for government workers. If you work for a state or local government that has its own retirement fund, you don't have to pay social security taxes.
@Hoodat
Thanks,I did not know that.
-
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.
@Hoodat
This is just not a conversation where no one from either side will ever agree on anything.
-
@massadvj
ROFLMAO!
i suppose you would be happy to wait in line each morning to pay the toll to use the road you drive on to get to work,and then pay the toll again that afternoon on your way home?
Roads and highways are funded through gasoline taxes in most places. That includes the interstate highway system, which is funded by federal gas taxes. That is how you make users pay for services. In spite of that, in many places people do pay extra tolls to access express lanes or to use tollways such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
-
And you can go on pretending that granting special privileges to government workers by granting them immunity from a 14% income tax somehow is consistent with ethical universalization and equal protection for all.
:mauslaff:
Thank God you're not in charge of legislation.
-
Thank God you're not in charge of legislation.
Making government workers live under the same rules as the rest of us? Oh, the horror!
-
Making government workers live under the same rules as the rest of us? Oh, the horror!
Force a false and specious equality onto differently-placed people.
-
Force a false and specious equality onto differently-placed people.
Why should people who are "differently placed" (read work in government) be special?
-
Why should people who are "differently placed" (read work in government) be special?
Who's being "special"? Geez.
-
Okay, I have come back to this thread and gone through all 171 replies and not once that I can recall have I seen an explanation how Trump shredded DeSantis :shrug:
-
Okay, I have come back to this thread and gone through all 171 replies and not once that I can recall have I seen an explanation how Trump shredded DeSantis :shrug:
... Or how a 'bad' record on entitlements - An unequivocally Conservative PLUS - is an election loser...
-
Okay, I have come back to this thread and gone through all 171 replies and not once that I can recall have I seen an explanation how Trump shredded DeSantis :shrug:
@GtHawk
Doan chan no dat Rude Orange Man bees sew ebil dat he kin do dat stuff in hiz sleep?
Be skeerid,be vewwy,vewwy skeerid!
-
@GtHawk
Doan chan no dat Rude Orange Man bees sew ebil dat he kin do dat stuff in hiz sleep?
Be skeerid,be vewwy,vewwy skeerid!
Sorry Pete, I didn't understand one word of what you trying to say, I know you were trying to be sarcastic but seriously I haven't a clue what you were trying to illiterate there.