AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

ican, What did the feds take from you?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Parados, I think Social Security--about a third of my retirement income is paid by Social Security--is a violation of the Constitution.

Ah, so you are willingly violating the US Constitution. I'm not surprised ican.
It's clear you put yourself ahead of the country.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Feds didn't 'take' that from you. You voluntarily entered into the program by remaining a citizen of the US. If you didn't like it, you could have left.

Now that is funny!
So the feds extorted and did not take money for SS from me and my family! Extorting is so much nicer than stealing!?????????????
………………~~~~~~~!??!??! ~~~~~~
………………..~~~~~~~(O|O) ~~~~
…………………~~~~~ ( \~o~/ ) ~~~~
………………..LEFTIST LIBERAL NONSENSE

0 Replies

@parados,

But, of coarse! ican doesn't respect our constitution even in his misinterpretation/misrepresentation of it. Maybe in his crazy world, two negatives makes it a positive.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

so you are willingly violating the US Constitution

Yes, parados, shame on me. I want my SS payments back from those who violated the Constitution by taking it from me. What a cad I am!
………………~~~~~~~!??!??! ~~~~~~
………………..~~~~~(O|O***O|O) ~~~~
…………………~~~~~ ( \~o~/ ) ~~~~
………………..LEFTIST LIBERAL NONSENSE

2 Replies

Just curious. In the 75 years since Social Security was 1st established, have there been any cases that got to the Supreme Court regarding whether or not it is constitutionally permissible?

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Ican, have you ever considered how contradictory it was of FDR to create a program like SS to supposedly "help" Americans, while at the same time he seemed not to be bothered by rounding up tens of thousands of Japanese Americans, German Americans, and other citizens, and incarcerating them in concentration camps around the country during World War II? Strange dichotomy there, wasn't it? Few people probably realize too that FDR appointed Tom Clark, a past member of the KKK, as his Attorney General. Some might remember Tom Clark's flaming liberal son, Ramsey Clark? FDR also appointed klansman, Hugo Black, to the Supreme court. And FDR's vp was the anti-Semite Harry Truman who also tried to join the KKK but finally withdrew because the Klan discriminated against Catholics and Truman's political sponsor in Kansas City was a Catholic.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Just curious. In the 75 years since Social Security was 1st established, have there been any cases that got to the Supreme Court regarding whether or not it is constitutionally permissible?

I would be interested in that for sure. Personally, I looked at my statement from last year and I have paid in close to $200,000 so far, including what my employers paid in. They of course could have paid me the money in wages if they had not been required to pay it into SS, so I have essentially paid in the $200,000. When I start drawing SS, my monthly check will be good, but in order to come out ahead, I will need to live many years to come out ahead. It is actually in the best financial interests of the government for people to die early in order for SS to stay solvent. That is why I'm not so sure that they really want people to stop smoking for example.

3 Replies

@okie,

Like GWB sending them to war to have them killed and proposals to have SS given over to Wall Street in the stock market to destroy pensions and enrich the brokers and so on.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, You're talking about a system you are against; you want to know if you'll gain from social security. FACT: most blacks lose money, because their longevity is the shortest in our country, and many do not get the benefits most Americans enjoy.

According to the census in 2005, life expectancy for both men and women are:
All races: 77.8, Whites 78.3, and blacks 73.2

During most of the years following social security, many blacks died before they received any benefit.

My wife and I paid into social security $131k, and have received over $300k in benefits. We are still both relatively healthy. I started collecting my social security early; before age 65.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

Like GWB sending them to war to have them killed and proposals to have SS given over to Wall Street in the stock market to destroy pensions and enrich the brokers and so on.

Hey talk, having young people killed does not reduce SS costs. In fact it may increase them due to more disabilities, plus it reduces the number of people in the current workforce needed to pay into the system to keep it afloat. It is people past 62 that the government might not mind them dying, as it would help SS stay solvent. That is one of the reasons why I think it is really foolhardy for people to place any confidence in the government for their health care.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It does indeed appear that many people receive more money than they ever paid in. However, you may be ignoring the fact that much of the money you paid into the system was many years, perhaps up to decades prior to when you started drawing SS, and if that money had been invested even in really low interest bearing things like CD's, the value of your money might be twice what you paid in, and maybe much more than that. During the late 70's interest on CDs was approaching 10% or more, and that kind of percentage compounded really grows the principle in a very rapid way. Also consider the fact that the government loans extra money from Social Security to themselves and the return on that is virtually next to nothing.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

When I start drawing SS, my monthly check will be good, but in order to come out ahead, I will need to live many years to come out ahead.

Yeah, but don't you plan on that? Don't you want the money to be there to cover you when you turn 100 or 105?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

Hey talk, having young people killed does not reduce SS costs. In fact it may increase them due to more disabilities, plus it reduces the number of people in the current workforce needed to pay into the system to keep it afloat.

How does the dead increase disabilities?

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, The huge difference is the crisis that happened in 2008; if most were invested in the stock market to fund their retirements, most would be too broke to retire. Before 2008, many getting close to retirement were looking forward to their retirement. What actually happened was, most now must work much longer than they planned, and will work much longer to survive.

The stock market is no guarantee, but social security has been there for our generation. With the huge government deficit that grows even larger every year, I'm not so sure the social security fund will last until 2048 as most economists claim. Especially since less workers are paying into the system with our unemployment at 25% (the true rate).

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Yes, parados, shame on me. I want my SS payments back from those who violated the Constitution by taking it from me. What a cad I am!

Yes, you are a cad. You are participating in taking money from what you consider illegal. That would make your action illegal. You are knowingly committing a crime and proud of it ican.

So much for your claim of how you love your country when you knowingly act in a manner that you think is a violation of the Constitution.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Helvering v. Davis

The funny part of this is that the legislation for SS in order to be constitutional separated the taxing and the payments for SS. This means ican is NOT getting his money back at all. His money went to taxes and not to his SS.

This means ican is not only knowingly taking money he knows is unconstitutional. He is taking money he didn't earn from someone else that earned it. Ironic, isn't it.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

How does the dead increase disabilities?

I think okie thinks his dependents are disabilities. Of course they may think he is a disability too.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie wrote:
Quote:
Hey talk, having young people killed does not reduce SS costs. In fact it may increase them due to more disabilities, plus it reduces the number of people in the current workforce needed to pay into the system to keep it afloat.

How does the dead increase disabilities?

This appears to be another case of not being able to read with comprehension, ci. I stated two factors, one being the obvious implication that when people are sent off to war, you not only have people killed but you will have more people injured and unable to work. The net effect is there will be more people on disability and there will be less people currently working to support the entire system.

1 Reply

@okie,

It's not my comprehension skills that is lacking; it's your English grammar. Ask anybody who understands English grammar, and ask them what you wrote means.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know