Posted on 02/10/2016 4:26:54 AM PST by IBD editorial writer
How about we just set off our nuclear arsenal all around the world and leave note to avoid socialism to the survivors?
It will seem like the end of the world to many who are accustomed to receiving checks, in whatever form, from the government.
As for Social Security/Medicare - communities around the country should be figuring out how to house, care for, and provide medical care to the elderly in their community.
If they don’t, a lot of these people will die, because the federal government is broke - they just haven’t admitted it yet.
Well then, lets just keep that nasty theft ball rolling. All that matters is that I get MINE, right?
“Pay to the order of Iron Balls McGinty.....One Dollar and Nine Cents.”
“â€â€Trouble is, Social Security and Medicare are ALSO Socialism .â€â€â€â€Correction, you were taxed for over 40 years and those taxes were transferred to social security recipients, just like a portion of your income taxes is transferred to welfare recipients. There may be an account number, but there is no account. There is no savings. There is no lockbox. It's an income transfer tax that's immediately redistributed to pay SS recipients with any leftovers going into the general budget. It's a ponzi scheme that works as long as the population and workforce are growing. When that ceases, so does the ponzi scheme.I paid into the SS fund for over 40 years. Since I was self employed I paid the employers part as well. SS is not a handout. It is an entitlement. I am entitled to the money because I PAID for it. I will only get back a fraction of what they stole from me.
Is it theft? It was money taken from you by force and given to others against your will. Sounds like a federal tax to me, but I can't tell much difference.
Oh, I understand fully. You fail to understand — or admit — that SS was a CONTRACT!
“Oh, I understand fully. You fail to understand — or admit — that SS was a CONTRACT!”
A contract between what two parties?
I assume you have something on paper?
“Oh, I understand fully. You fail to understand — or admit — that SS was a CONTRACT!”
A contract between what two parties?
I assume you have something on paper?
Between the contributor and the government. It’s basic contract law. Look it up.
“It’s basic contract law. Look it up.”
I think you’ll be surprised to find that there is no contract.
The only “contract” is that you agree to pay your taxes (including your so-called social security “contributions”), and the government agrees to not freeze your assets or put you in jail for non-payment.
That’s as close to any contract you’ll find when it comes to Social Security.
This has already been litigated, by the way. Your assumption that it’s a contract has already been disproven.
“Your assumption that it’s a contract has already been disproven.”
Uh, no. Basic law of contracts: A party gives something (consideration) in exchange for a promise of getting something in return.
Example: I agree to pay Roofer A to put a new roof on my house. Doesn’t even have to be in writing. Contract.
“Basic law of contracts: A party gives something (consideration) in exchange for a promise of getting something in return.”
How cute. You think that contract law applies to the US government which has litigated this issue already -
You didn’t give anything. You paid a tax. There is no promise to pay you squat in return.
There is no contract.
“There is no promise to pay you squat in return.”
Read the SS law.
Again:
This has been litigated. You pay a tax. When you are old enough, you get an entitlement.
There is an expectation of a contractual relationship - that “your” money comes back to you, but that does not make it so.
“Read the SS law.”
All of this is immaterial. This will proceed in one of two ways:
1. We’ll come to our senses and cut all functions of government, including entitlements to the barest of minimums and attempt to address our accumulated debt.
2. We’ll keep spending money we don’t have, borrowing from the future until some fiscal event prevents us from doing so, in which case we will simply print money until the dollar is so debased, including the ongoing and future value of entitlements (and oh, by the way, also destroying savings and every other dollar-denominated asset).
You and I both know that #1 isn’t going to happen - and that is the point of my posting on this thread. You and millions of government check recipients like you insist that “your” money should be paid before others. There is not much folks in this group would NOT do to make sure they get what they think they are “owed”.
We know this (#2) will happen. We know we can’t pay everybody everything everyone wants - even if we took every penny from those citizens who are forced to work and pay for everyone else - before they take care of themselves and their families.
EVEN IF there were an actual, enforceable contract, we still can’t pay.
Actually, according to “Flemming v. Nestor (1960),” which I just found, the Supreme Court did indeed hold that SS was not a legally binding contract. You are right.
It gives me no pleasure to be right about it.
It is simply a harbinger of what to expect from your government when they run out of money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.