Posted on 06/30/2017 9:36:27 AM PDT by davikkm
A lot of people have been influenced by the Progressive Movement to believe government programs are rights. The lack of intellect causes many of the low information folks to go so far as to call them entitlements.
Here is a question worth noodling.
The Supreme Court ruled that Social Security is constitutional because it is not welfare, rather it is a tax.
The question:
What is the Federal Government's legal obligation to return any amount to FICA contributors?
Why should I get mad at you?
When a person is robbed, who is the corrupted one, the victim or the robber?
Under our laws, I am bound to obey legitimately passed laws. I don’t have a choice to pick and choose. If I had, I would have opted out of Social Security.
I am not responsible for what crooked politicians do.
But the solution is simple: when you and other like-minded and high-minded people retire, just refuse to draw Social Security. It is that simple. Let us all know, and I will be impressed.
“It’s not a trust fund. A lock box. A retirement account. It’s a transfer of payment system, from makers to takers. It’s welfare.”
If y’all wanna shoot the messenger, have at it. But it won’t change the facts.
Fine, If they would like to refund my money (with interest) I will be out of your hair.
The robber, obviously ... and the instant someone begins "drawing social security", he becomes a robber.
I am not responsible for what crooked politicians do.
To the extent that you voted for them, yes you are responsible for what they do. Did you vote for Nixon? Reagan? Bush? Bush? Trump? Any congressthing or senaturd that actually got elected? Furthermore, you are responsible for what you choose to do ... including applying for and receiving social security payments.
Social Security corrupts everyone. I believe that's exactly what Roosevelt, fascist POS that he was, intended. That's why he pushed for it.
“To the extent that you voted for them, yes you are responsible for what they do.”
That is laughable.
So I suppose that is your answer that you left off: you will eschew drawing Social Security after paying all your working life.
“What is the Federal Government’s legal obligation to return any amount to FICA contributors?”
Some people claim that the Supreme Court has ruled it doesn’t have to return any. And, in fact, on an individual basis, it does every day deny people their Social Security benefits, or parts thereof.
However, you will notice that it doesn’t do it en mass. And under the social contract concept that guided our Founders in writing the Constitution, when the laws state that when you contribute to SS over a working lifetime, that you will receive benefits from your contributions, and if words have any meaning at all, then it may not be a right, but it certainly is a law.
That is laughable.
That is the nature of a Republic. Would you prefer a monarchy?
The difference between you and me is that I know I have been corrupted. You refuse to admit it.
I would happily see the whole damned edifice torn down; pay off the current victims and quit making new ones. I bet there's enough "federal" land and mineral rights to do that. Once. The sooner, the better.
But delude yourself not: every penny you (or I) may receive in social security payments is picked directly from the pocket of someone currently working. It's not ours. We don't have a right to it. If Fedzilla chose to cut it off tomorrow we wouldn't have a claim against it. And even if we did, Fedzilla is 19 TRILLION dollars in debt. The line for collecting against it starts over there ...
ROFL!!!
If the Constitution had anything to do with the actions of our government, there wouldn't BE a "social security" program. The Congress has no Constitutional authority to create one.
"Social Security Is Not A Benefit. It Is A Right [??? emphasis added] That One Has Paid For!"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Patriots beware !
Although there has never been anything stopping the sovereign states from expressly constitutionally delegating to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for something like Social Security, it remains that the states have never done so, the feds still not having the required constitutional consent of the states to tax and spend for things like Social Security and many other things.
This is evidenced by the following excerpts from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices, and post-Civil War era Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons [emphasis added], our property, our reputation and religious freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphases added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In other words, Social Security is an example of a politically correct, vote-buying “right,” like abortion and Obamacare imo, FDR and his state sovereignty-ignoring Congress wrongly establishing Social Security without the required consent of the Constitution’s Article V state majority, Social Security being based on an old, low-information interpretation of the General Welfare Clause (GWC; 1.8.1).
More specifically, first consider that President Thomas Jefferson had given several examples of “public improvement” in his sixth State-of-the-Union address, noting that it would be up to the states to appropriately amend the Constitution to give Congress the power to regulate, tax and spend for such improvements.
"On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphases added]“—Thomas Jefferson : Sixth Annual Message to Congress
But the rookie 14th Congress which followed the Jefferson Administration evidently did not get the word of Jefferson’s state-of-the-union address with respect to appropriately amending the Constitution for public improvements.
More specifically, even though there was nothing stopping Congress from exercising its constitutional Article V powers to propose appropriate amendments to the Constitution to the states with respect to Jefferson’s suggested public improvements, Congress failed to do so before passing the public works bill of 1817.
In fact, President James Madison vetoed the public works bill of 1817, complementing Jefferson’s words by pointing out in the constitutionally required veto explanation that, regardless of politically correct (my term) interpretations of the Common Defense and General Welfare Clause (1.8.1), other than the post roads clause (1.8.7), there are no clauses in Congress’s constitutional Article I Section 8-limited powers that gave Congress the specific power to tax and spend to build things like roads and canals.
Veto of federal public works bill
Madison had indicated that the GWC (1.8.1) was in incomplete delegation of power to tax, the remaining clauses in Section 8 clarifying the limited ways that Congress can tax and spend in order to perform its Section 8 duties.
So the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress has expanded Jefferson’s examples of public improvements that Congress has wrongly ignored first securing the required express constitutional consent of the states to regulate, tax and spend for, Congress using stolen state powers and uniquely associated state revenues collected by means of unconstitutional federal taxes to pay for such things.
public education
roads
rivers
canals
other
Social Security
Medicaid
welfare
Obamacare
In fact, if a given federal domestic spending program is not reasonably related to the US Mail Service (1.8.7) then you can bet that it is unconstitutional and be right probably most of the time.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.
Feel free to kvetch . Can't hurt. :-)
I’ll be happy to take the PV8 as of the date every single dollar was paid into my account. Return the “investment” and I’ll happily walk away and never say another word.
Otherwise, I want my money as agreed. I’m just not that much of a “patriot” to let it go.
SS disability was handed out like cheap candy during the bongo years as a means of PERMANENT welfare.
Agree
The Galveston Plan worked very well and it did not take long for it to be effective.
Someone said that SS payments are “voluntary”. Try not paying them and see what you “volunteered” for. You won’t like it.
I'm with you. I 'contributed' from 1960 to 2008.
I complained from day one. Force me to withhold and let me pick the investments.
that's the way it was presented, and God knows, we've been forced to pay it our entire working lives, no questions asked....
I'm 63...husband has Tricare so I could retire...but I want to wait one or even two more years...
when I get there, I will have been paying in for at least 45 yrs...
you betcha I expect it...you betcha I made my "donation" many times over...
maybe the medicare tax infuriates me even more....you pay for that your working lives to basically have a catastrophic insurance policy, which is the cheapest insurance around...and they call this some great benefit...yeah, right...
Totally agree. If the gov’t had kept its hands out of Soc Sec and Medicare, and stopped raiding it to fund their off-budget pet projects (like giving it to illegals), we would be in a more fiscally sound position.
I say, payback is a bitch. Take ALL Congresspersons’ and former Presidents’ pensions and zero them out. Fiscally it won’t matter to a hill of beans, but it should be done on principle.
They should all be bound by the same crap they foist on us little people.
and it went up at first slowly and now up to where its at...
which means a whole bunch of retirees made off like bandits because they put very little tax money in but have been collecting for decades...
throw in the truly disabled, who deserve it, and the millions of people that are not truly disabled who have been collecting it in huge amts...
throw in the illegals and their children, plus the refugees, who just all happen to have some mental disease, and throw in those illegals who claim to by 65, because you know they lost their BC back in their old country...
Disaster....
Best statement I have read yet!
Simpson is right.
How do the baby boomers (myself included) think the Social Security deficits are “supposed” to be paid? Higher payroll taxes on their working kids (some have said that singular means could reach 30%), and their kids? Higher general taxes on everyone?
Simpsons point is that it is going to take adjustments all around, and neither the law nor the Constitution PROMISES that social security benefits cannot be adjusted. In fact, they HAVE been adjusted continually since they were enacted.
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.