SOCIAL SECURITY: IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK

Fox:

When GOPNext attacked the AARP and homosexuals, it's been fair game ever since. These neoconservatives idiots set the smear bar high on this one.

If you insist on discussing this intelligently, it would be nice to hear a little condemnation regarding these pathetic tactics.

But I doubt that will happen...

And so it goes.

0 Replies

Fox,

the poll you posted is for Janurary 2005; and support for the plans has done nothing but drop in the last month, as you well know. Co-incidentally, this is the month when the vast majority of Americans began to find out details of the plan. So, I contend your numbers are seriously out of date. BTW, the prez' plans are what, exactly? Why hasn't there been a serious plan presented by the WH, if they've done so much research into it?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Good points Cyclop, no details are forthcoming. Only that he is willing to "listen" to all ideas. WHAT A PLAN! There's really no plan.

0 Replies

I call that a fishing expedition, but without any guarantees of cathing anything.

0 Replies

I do want to thank you guys. I had a $10.00 bet with a professional friend who has been checking in here now then. The bet was that within a week the following would happen:
1) The liberals would not be able to stay on topic.
2) At least one liberal would attack me personally.
3) Most liberals would not be able to understand the concept of 'reasoning together' or what 'reasonable' means.
4) At least one liberal would attack George Bush and/or the administration.
5) At least one liberal would completely dismiss objective facts as irrelevant because they did not fit with his notions.
6) At least one liberal would claim moral superiority.
7) At least one liberal would bring in totally unrelated topics, and, my personal favorite
8) At least one liberal would say something so utterly stupid that we would belly laugh.

This is the seventh day. My friend just paid me the $10 Smile

Anyhow, after you guys get through bashing and trashing and hating the world in here, I hope those who really do want to have a reasonable discussion and exploration of social security can get back to it.
Meanwhile there are other threads that invite the bashing and trashing.

0 Replies

Well I can take credit for the first 8 items. How many do you claim for yourself on the converse Fox?

0 Replies

Make your own bets Dys. And don't mess with my sure thing.

0 Replies

And she leaves into the sunset happily with $10 in her pocket...

0 Replies

It's much more enjoyable debating with Mcg, at least he's honest.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Now, you, and many liberals like you want to "pay a little extra in taxes to help people out,". That's fine, you should. Give to charities, give to your church, hell, pay more taxes if you want, but don't require me to do the same. I am a selfish prick and I believe the welfare of my family far outweighs the welfare of your family. Just as I hope you would.

How's your satellite reception in your survivalist hole in the ground, McGentrix?

Last I checked, charities and church donations generally don't pay for things like highway repairs, city municipalities, and just about everything else in between which is taxpayer funded to help maintain an effective U.S. infrastructure.

In that you are a selfish prick there can be no question. At least you're honest...

It's like you don't pay any attention to anything. Rolling Eyes

Please explain to me, in the demented way only you can, how social security pays for any of the things you have mentioned.

0 Replies

Williams wrote:

Quote:

In Helvering v. Davis (1937), the court held that Social Security was not an insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both (employee and employer) taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way."

The court ruling for Helvering v Davis does not mention insurance anywhere in the ruling. Again INSURANCE IS NOT MENTIONED ONCE. Helvering v Davis was a case brought because opponents claimed SS taxes were unconstitutional. The court ruled they were constitutional. Wiliams mischaracterizes the ruling.

I stated this earlier Foxfyre and gave a link so you could read the entire ruling YOURSELF. I gave you the opportunity to make your own decision but instead you failed to read it then wonder why I haven't disproved Williams. OK. you have Williams abreviated quote above:
Now let me provide the entire quote from the ruling found at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=301&invol=619

The court in laying out its ruling discusses the law.

Quote:

The income tax on employees is to be collected by the employer, who is to deduct the amount from the wages 'as and when paid.' Section 802(a), 42 U.S.C.A. 1002(a). He is indemnified against claims and demands of any person by reason of such payment. Ibid. The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not ear-marked in any way. Section 807(a), 42 U.S.C.A. 1007(a). There are penalties for nonpayment. Section 807(c), 42 U.S.C.A. 1007(c).

Now let me quote the first sentence of 807(a) found here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html

Quote:

SEC. 807. (a) The taxes imposed by this title shall be collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal- revenue collections. If the tax is not paid when due, there shall be added as part of the tax interest (except in the case of adjustments made in accordance with the provisions of sections 802 (b) and 805) at the rate of one-half of 1 per centum per month from the date the tax became due until paid.

Now let me quote again from the ruling:

Quote:

The first section of this title creates an account in the United States Treasury to be known as the 'Old-Age [301 U.S. 619, 636] Reserve Account.' Section 201 (42 U.S.C.A. 401)

For people like Williams that can't seem to read past what they WANT to see. The act pays money into the Treasury in one part of the code and the Treasury sets up an account called the 'Old-Age Reserve Account' in another. The money goes to the Treasury because ALL US Federal funds are kept in the Treasury. All Trust funds are kept in the Treasury, the highway fund etc. The Treasury is the ONLY place that Federal funds CAN be kept. Funds are then allocated to the "Old-Age Reserve Account' as needed to make payments. The funds are NOT earmarked in 807(a), but the Account is set up in Section 201 (42 USCA 401).

Helvering v Davis relies heavily on the ruling from Chas. C. Steward Machine v Davis which was ruled on the same day as Helvering. Let me quote from Steward

Quote:

The proceeds of the excise when collected are paid into the Treasury at Washington, and thereafter are subject to appropriation like public moneys generally. Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States (May 3, 1937) 301 U.S. 308 , 57 S.Ct. 764, 81 L.Ed. --.No presumption can be indulged that they will be misapplied or wasted.

Let me cite that again, No presumption can be indulged that they will be misapplied or wasted. The courts ruled the direct OPPOSITE of what Williams claimed if I read that correctly. We can NOT PRESUME that the money can be missapplied or wasted by eliminating benefits.

Let me know if you need further clarification on this point Foxfyre then we can move on to the other points.

0 Replies

Maybe you can explain to me first how, in your your own demented way, you somehow equated my last response to SS funding our nation's infrastructure, when it was in direct response to the quote I used coming from your mouth:

McGentrix wrote:

Now, you, and many liberals like you want to "pay a little extra in taxes to help people out,". That's fine, you should. Give to charities, give to your church, hell, pay more taxes if you want, but don't require me to do the same. I am a selfish prick and I believe the welfare of my family far outweighs the welfare of your family. Just as I hope you would.

I believe we were taking about how much of a selfish prick you are, and how some of use are more willing to have our tax dollars help others in a time of need, as well as maintaining our nation's infrastructure.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Well, Fox, I just collected $20 from a friend who I bet you would say what you just said. Laughing

But seriously, you said that we (liberals and progressives?) are attacking the president and his administration for their belief in personal accountability. That is not so. We want the president and his administration, especially Cheney and his so-callled energy bill "advisors," to cough up the truth about, to be accountable for, their less than transparent actions, And we would very much like Bush to admit that his real intention is to dismantle FDR's "safety net" rather than saving social security. Such hypocrisy!!! Remember that competitive capitalism, by its very nature, produces "failures" (as does the curve in a college grading system). It is a dangerous system for the less able competitors. It must, for that reason, have some kind of safety net. The most heartless among us would accept a scenario in which the wealthy live in guarded walled cities, protected from the starving masses. It is in the long-term interest of the wealthy to provide for the less successful. We really cannot discuss this social security issue without also facing up to its political implications.

0 Replies

Has anyone been paying attention to what they're doing to medicaid and bankrupcty laws these days?

I think this SS bill is just a smokescreen to hide what they're chopping right now...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Fox is happy with her $20. She just fades away...

0 Replies

Yes. They're trying to make it harder for middle-class and poorer Americans saddled with credit card debt to file for bankruptcy.

In the end, it would seem that the selfish pricks are furthering their cause...

0 Replies

Dookiestix, your anger gives me some relief. I wish more people had and expressed such righteous anger.
Yes, Cyclop. That is very possibly one of the benefits expected from their assault of social security, but I also think they are very serious about dismantling SS.

0 Replies

It needs to be plainly understood that what the neoconservatives are trying to do in destroying SS is not born out of some desire to "fix" it, but rather it comes from their ideology of getting rid of Government as we know (the one that was by the people and for the people, etc.) and replacing it with one that is purely run by corporations from top to bottom.

Privatization is the key word in Washington by these neocons, and they will destroy just about anything that stands in their way, including integrity and ethics in Washingon, as well as the U.S. Constitution itself. 9/11 cemented the fear in our country which they have so effectively used to cow the American public into brainwashed submission.

I guess it's o.k. to these people that credit card companies prey on the poor and weak, thereby locking them into indebted fiscal servitude for the rest of their natural born days when they cannot apply for bankruptcy anymore. But you can COUNT on major corporations which are in trouble to get their whopping corporate tax breaks and a clear passage in filing for Chapter 11 if need be.

Why do neoconservatives feel that giving a portion of their SS to brokerage firms and accounting firms (both who would stand to make a fortune off of private accounts) is a solution when it has already been firmly established that none of these "fixes" will address the solvency issue?

0 Replies

You can see the arguments that drive the basis of these beliefs come out in reading through this and other threads.

The most prevalent argument is, 'Why should I have to help pay for X?' Where X is a drug user, pregnant welfare mom, or lazy minority every time in the mind of the poster, and never a family ravaged by cancer, and old lady with no family, or a disabled man.

Deep down, they want to get rid of SS all together. They are offended by a system in which money they earn gets spread out to help the less fortunate. The truth is that they don't give a damn about the less fortunate. Oh, you'll hear phrases like 'there are Churches and Charities to help, why can't they do it?' But that's bullsh*t. Tithing to churches is way down over the last twenty years; and who wants to go beg to a church for money? In many cases, they require you to be, umm, religious before they will help you. This is flat-out wrong IMO that we would force someone to find religion in this manner; it reminds me of the Christian missionaries who won't hand out food, water, or aid to Hindus who won't convert to Christianity. Sickening stuff.

The Democrats have come out and said the following, in a letter to Bush: Take privatization off of the table. You know it doesn't do anything to solve the money cruch we're undergoing in SS. In fact, it'll make the money crunch much, much worse than it is. We're willing to discuss every other option besides that.

They have done this because they know what you and I know: This is the first step to complete privatization of SS, to getting RID of it altogether. We can't let them get rid of the greatest social invention of the last century, one that has helped an immense number of Americans and is hailed as one of the great achievements of our country.

Personally, I won't ever stop fighting this cause. Can we fix SS? Yes! Do we need to do it right this second, with a bunch of haste, in a way that won't fix it? No!

The good news is that it doesn't look like the private accounts are going to fly, based upon the publics, yeah, massive resistance to the idea. For day-to-day updates, I highly recommend:

www.talkingpointsmemo.com

Great site.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, I'd love to have a reasonable discussion, but everytime I try to whittle down to what it is we're trying to propose solutions for I get shot out of the water and dismissed as liberal AND insulting.

So, let's try again. What is it that we're proposing solutions to? Are we trying to solve the problem of social security running out of money? Or are we trying to solve the problem of making sure that our elderly are cared for? Or is it a different problem altogether?

0 Replies

SOCIAL SECURITY: IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know