this is just a shell game and when all the shells are hoisted there is no peanut to be found.
Fraud. Plain and simple.
...and here is a maxim of law: "Fraud vitiates contracts." U.S. -v- Throckmorton (1878) 98 US 61 @65
and just for fun 2 more: Federal Crop Insurance -v- A.A. Merrill (1947) 332 US 380-388 @387 "there are risks involved in making arrangements with the government."
and, American Communications Association -v- Douds (1949) 339 US 382-453 @443 "....it is not the function of government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
Your point with regard to the entrenched interests in the status quo are good, but incomplete, and thus factually misrepresentative.
The reason such a large % of citizens "support" these intrusive social welfare programs is because they've been forced to pay in to them for decades. It isn't a question of getting something for nothing, but of trying to recoup one's losses.
If I steal $20 from your wallet, does that give you any right to steal $20 from the chap next to me?
Phrased another way, would the position you describe change if it were demonstrated that the money "paid into the system" has actually been spent by the FedGov and no longer exists?
One other point of fact -- the Supremes have ruled on whether or not there is a property interest in payments made into the Social Security system in Flemming vs. Nestor, 363 US 603 (1960).
...The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.
The fact that many people believe in the fairy tale of "I paid in" doesn't change the fact that they are simply victims of more theft-by-force schemes.
If I steal $20 from your wallet, does that give you any right to steal $20 from the chap next to me?
Phrased another way, would the position you describe change if it were demonstrated that the money "paid into the system" has actually been spent by the FedGov and no longer exists?
One other point of fact -- the Supremes have ruled on whether or not there is a property interest in payments made into the Social Security system in Flemming vs. Nestor, 363 US 603 (1960).
...The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.
The fact that many people believe in the fairy tale of "I paid in" doesn't change the fact that they are simply victims of more theft-by-force schemes.
CA: an article published in Time magazine (of all places)back in March 20, 1995, cover story:THE CASE FOR KILLING SOCIAL SECURITY. spoke directly to the notion (fairy-tale) that each payer had an account with his/her name on it for future retirement. Was "mendacious nonsense". hahaha that sums it all up quite nicely.
They stole the money and we are expected to just grin and bear it?
You are, as always, too kind.
ReplyDeleteThe Fed on the other hand needs a lesson in how not to appear so desperate.
End the FED now!
ReplyDeletethis is just a shell game and when all the shells are hoisted there is no peanut to be found.
Fraud. Plain and simple.
...and here is a maxim of law:
"Fraud vitiates contracts."
U.S. -v- Throckmorton (1878)
98 US 61 @65
and just for fun 2 more:
Federal Crop Insurance -v- A.A. Merrill (1947)
332 US 380-388 @387
"there are risks involved in making arrangements with the government."
and,
American Communications Association -v- Douds (1949)
339 US 382-453 @443
"....it is not the function of government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
KPN3%
Your point with regard to the entrenched interests in the status quo are good, but incomplete, and thus factually misrepresentative.
ReplyDeleteThe reason such a large % of citizens "support" these intrusive social welfare programs is because they've been forced to pay in to them for decades. It isn't a question of getting something for nothing, but of trying to recoup one's losses.
Ruralcounsel:
ReplyDeleteIf I steal $20 from your wallet, does that give you any right to steal $20 from the chap next to me?
Phrased another way, would the position you describe change if it were demonstrated that the money "paid into the system" has actually been spent by the FedGov and no longer exists?
One other point of fact -- the Supremes have ruled on whether or not there is a property interest in payments made into the Social Security system in Flemming vs. Nestor, 363 US 603 (1960).
Flemming Case
Wiki on the case
SocSec Admin on the case:
Excerpt:
...The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.
The fact that many people believe in the fairy tale of "I paid in" doesn't change the fact that they are simply victims of more theft-by-force schemes.
Ruralcounsel:
ReplyDeleteIf I steal $20 from your wallet, does that give you any right to steal $20 from the chap next to me?
Phrased another way, would the position you describe change if it were demonstrated that the money "paid into the system" has actually been spent by the FedGov and no longer exists?
One other point of fact -- the Supremes have ruled on whether or not there is a property interest in payments made into the Social Security system in Flemming vs. Nestor, 363 US 603 (1960).
Flemming Case
Wiki on the case
SocSec Admin on the case:
see next comment for continuation...
From the SSA site cited above:
ReplyDeleteExcerpt:
...The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.
The fact that many people believe in the fairy tale of "I paid in" doesn't change the fact that they are simply victims of more theft-by-force schemes.
CA:
ReplyDeletean article published in Time magazine (of all places)back in March 20, 1995, cover story:THE CASE FOR KILLING SOCIAL SECURITY. spoke directly to the notion (fairy-tale) that each payer had an account with his/her name on it for future retirement. Was "mendacious nonsense". hahaha that sums it all up quite nicely.
They stole the money and we are expected to just grin and bear it?
FUCK THAT!!!
KPN3%