PDA

View Full Version : As with all Ponzi schemes ...



LWW
08-22-2011, 02:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON (AP) Laid-off workers and aging baby boomers are flooding Social Security's disability program with benefit claims, pushing the financially strapped system toward the brink of insolvency.

Applications are up nearly 50 percent over a decade ago as people with disabilities lose their jobs and can't find new ones in an economy that has shed nearly 7 million jobs.

The stampede for benefits is adding to a growing backlog of applicants many wait two years or more before their cases are resolved and worsening the financial problems of a program that's been running in the red for years.
New congressional estimates say the trust fund that supports Social Security disability will run out of money by 2017, leaving the program unable to pay full benefits, unless Congress acts. </div></div>

A NATIONAL TRAVESTY! (http://news.yahoo.com/social-security-disability-verge-insolvency-090119318.html)

In this country we will soon turn our backs on the disabled and needy because we squandered most of the SSD trust fund on the criminal shysters.

Soflasnapper
08-26-2011, 05:47 PM
Ponzi schemes fail when they can no longer put new people into it.

How is that the case here? Don't think it's so.

LWW
08-26-2011, 06:33 PM
Social Security is spending more than it takes in ... the trust fund is merely IOU's to be paid off in fiat money by the largest debtor in the history of the world, and those IOU's dwarf what is carried on the books as the debt of the USA.

Anything else I can help you with?

You sound like a guy who gives AMWAY seminars.

Soflasnapper
09-02-2011, 06:09 PM
The SS system is NOW spending more than it takes out, due to the bad economy. Less people working, and more people taking the early retirement option, etc. Happened the LAST time unemployment was this high, during St. Ronald Reagan's reign of error, as well, for this same reason.

The US debt owed to SS's trust fund does not exceed what is carried on the books as the debt of the USA. It is INCLUDED in the debt of the USA, and in any case, is LESS than the publicly held share.

As for the Amway seminars, that was my twin sister, and I'm surprised you've mistaken us. Seriously. We look nothing alike.

Soflasnapper
09-02-2011, 06:33 PM
Do you have any other alleged example of an alleged Ponzi scheme, lasting 80 years or so?

That's a clue for you.

Not only is there no need for more and more people joining to sustain this, in exponentially increasing fashion (as Ponzi schemes require), but quite the contrary, as is often mentioned, we have FEWER AND FEWER workers per beneficiary.

cushioncrawler
09-02-2011, 07:03 PM
The whole usofa iz a ponzi.
Future generations are going to hav to pay for all of the damage being dunn now. Here i mean damage to the environment and to the whole woild.

$$$$$ type ponzies are chickenfeed, of minor moment, no real loss at all.
The usofa duzzen know what a real loss really iz.
The usofa duzzen know what real iz.
The usofa duzzen care what real iz.
mac.

LWW
09-03-2011, 01:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you have any other alleged example of an alleged Ponzi scheme, lasting 80 years or so?

That's a clue for you.

Not only is there no need for more and more people joining to sustain this, in exponentially increasing fashion (as Ponzi schemes require), but quite the contrary, as is often mentioned, we have FEWER AND FEWER workers per beneficiary.

</div></div>

You have just described a Ponzi scheme.

Soflasnapper
09-03-2011, 10:02 AM
What? I've just described the OPPOSITE of a Ponzi scheme, in its most significant meaning.

The trick of a Ponzi scheme to keep going, unless it is gaining exponentially more and more 'investors,' is to keep said 'investors' 'invested' by getting them to not take out their money, through showing of account statements that indicate they're being paid as claimed. That, or getting any who have been repaid to put their money back into that system. That was the Bernie Madoff trick, and how he continued to operate for so long. Both getting more and more people into his system, AND having many in that system satisfied to remain invested, because of his fraudulent account statements showing they were 'earning' the stated rate of return.

However, the SS system pays some 50 million people every month (nobody is kept happy to not take their checks), and there is no significant buying back in. There is little backflow ('reinvesting') if any, as SS benefits are not wage income, and do not have the FICA/MC tax owed or deducted on any of that amount.

Lastly, nobody in the system now is being promised any kind of great rate of return. If it is a slightly positive rate of return on what is put in, that is the most that happens. Low single digit percentages of return.

LWW
09-03-2011, 10:27 AM
This has been done via:

- <s>Undocumeted</s> <s>democrats</s> <s>illegal</s> <s>immigrants</s> motor voter laws.

- The baby boom.

- Increasing the retirement age.

- Increasing the SS tax by several hundred percent.

I can lead you to knowledge ... I can't make you think.

LWW
09-03-2011, 10:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lastly, nobody in the system now is being promised any kind of great rate of return.</div></div>

Nobody in the system now has been promised a benefit of any kind either.

So ... what was your point, if anything?

Soflasnapper
09-03-2011, 11:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This has been done via:

- <s>Undocumeted</s> <s>democrats</s> <s>illegal</s> <s>immigrants</s> motor voter laws.

- The baby boom.

- Increasing the retirement age.

- Increasing the SS tax by several hundred percent.

I can lead you to knowledge ... I can't make you think. </div></div>

If I understand this claim, the Ponzi scheme you say the SS is furthered itself by arranging for motor voter laws and the baby boom?

Motor voter laws do not provide persons with fraudulent SS numbers, so as to feed new persons into the payments toward this system. Including this makes no sense whatsoever, as I can see zero impact on SS from getting people at the motor vehicles dept. registered TO VOTE. TO VOTE, not to gain the ability to work with a SS number, fraudulently.

As for the baby boom, it did not prevent the ratio of workers to beneficiaries from continuing to decline, but simply somewhat lowered that decline. Nor was it so big a HELP to the system, compared to being a looming THREAT to the system.

It was setting up a reserve FOR the boomers (and their generally longer lived retirement prospects) that ended up with the Reagan/Greenspan Commission 'fix' for SS, which saw the taxation rate go up by 50%, the ceiling go up on the earned income to which it applied by a couple hundred percent, and the retirement age increased.

These moves created an actuarial balance in the system for about 35 years.

There is never any actuarial balance in a Ponzi scheme.

LWW
09-03-2011, 01:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Motor voter laws do not provide persons with fraudulent SS numbers, so as to feed new persons into the payments toward this system.</div></div>

But, as you noted., it makes it simple to vote.

Once they became a voting bloc ... enforcement of employment regs became far more difficult, witness the Obama regime suing states for attempting to enforce immigration law.

LWW
09-03-2011, 01:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for the baby boom, it did not prevent the ratio of workers to beneficiaries from continuing to decline, but simply somewhat lowered that decline. Nor was it so big a HELP to the system, compared to being a looming THREAT to the system. </div></div>

How easily you are duped. In true Ponziism ... premiums collected from younger workers were used to <s>bribe</s> <s>payoff</s> pay benefits to older voters who paid in far less.

These younger voters were unable to attempt to receive their retirement benefits until ... 2008. When did the SS program go into the red? 2009?

LWW
09-03-2011, 01:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was setting up a reserve FOR the boomers (and their generally longer lived retirement prospects) that ended up with the Reagan/Greenspan Commission 'fix' for SS, which saw the taxation rate go up by 50%, the ceiling go up on the earned income to which it applied by a couple hundred percent, and the retirement age increased.</div></div>

And you are, again, describing exactly how a Ponzi scheme works. Ponzi's scheme counted on ever more people paying ever more into the pyramid. Eventually he ran out of idiots.

Do you honestly expect your grandchildren to pay half of their income to support your early retirement?

The situation is unsustainable as the system is running out of idiots ... as happens with all Ponzi schemes.

LWW
09-03-2011, 01:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These moves created an actuarial balance in the system for about 35 years.</div></div>

So did Ponzi's moves ... he was to pay prior investors from the proceeds owed by future investors.

There is no money ... no gold ... no silver ... no anything is the SS trust fund other than a promise to print worthless fiat money.

You are smarter than falling for this Ponzi scheme ... yet many smart people have allowed their greed to dupe them into believing in such voodoo economics.

LWW
09-03-2011, 01:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=LWW]There is never any actuarial balance in a Ponzi scheme.

</div></div>

Ponzi said there was.

Soflasnapper
09-03-2011, 02:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=LWW]There is never any actuarial balance in a Ponzi scheme.

</div></div>

Ponzi said there was. </div></div>

And was disproven in 200 days.

Soflasnapper
09-03-2011, 02:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Motor voter laws do not provide persons with fraudulent SS numbers, so as to feed new persons into the payments toward this system.</div></div>

But, as you noted., it makes it simple to vote.

Once they became a voting bloc ... enforcement of employment regs became far more difficult, witness the Obama regime suing states for attempting to enforce [FEDERAL] immigration law. </div></div>

Another bizarre and unfounded claim?

When are employment laws subject to a vote of the people? I have not heard of this ever occurring.

Soflasnapper
09-03-2011, 02:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=Soflasnapper]It was setting up a reserve FOR the boomers (and their generally longer lived retirement prospects) that ended up with the Reagan/Greenspan Commission 'fix' for SS, which saw the taxation rate go up by 50%, the ceiling go up on the earned income to which it applied by a couple hundred percent, and the retirement age increased.</div></div>

And you are, again, describing exactly how a Ponzi scheme works. Ponzi's scheme counted on ever more people paying ever more into the pyramid. Eventually he ran out of idiots.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>YES, IN 200 DAYS!</span>

Do you honestly expect your grandchildren to pay half of their income to support your early retirement?

There is no substantiation to make that question remotely credible. The 'fix' required to SS is a minor one, and one that certainly doesn't involve anybody eventually pay 50% of their income into the system. Not more than about 1-2% of payrolls would be the number, and less than the '80s 'fix' entailed.

The situation is unsustainable as the system is running out of idiots ... as happens with all Ponzi schemes.

The situation is unsustainable if a 9% UE (U-2 number) is sustained. Assuming it comes down to a 5-6% UE (U-2) number, it is not.

Soflasnapper
09-03-2011, 02:39 PM
There is no money ... no gold ... no silver ... no anything is the SS trust fund other than a promise to print worthless fiat money.


Which is the identical situation for all holders of US Treasury debt obligations. However, there IS the backing of the ability to lawfully tax the working population, which is sufficient collateral to convince the entire world that US Treasury obligations are the safest investment in the world today. What is it that you know that the smartest investors in the world do not understand, in your view?

You are smarter than falling for this Ponzi scheme ... yet many smart people have allowed their greed to dupe them into believing in such voodoo economics.

My father surely receives as large a SS check as possible (since he always earned and paid at the top of the possible taxation schedule for SS tax), and it is limited to $2,059 a month. Most SS checks are far lower. So what 'greed' is it you claim is involved here? These are modest stipends, not luxurious sinecures that prop up high living standards.

LWW
09-03-2011, 05:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which is the identical situation for all holders of US Treasury debt obligations. However, there IS the backing of the ability to lawfully tax the working population, which is sufficient collateral to convince the entire world that US Treasury obligations are the safest investment in the world today. What is it that you know that the smartest investors in the world do not understand, in your view?</div></div>

1 - US debt is not the safest investment in the world today.

2 - It is becoming less safe with each passing day.

3 - Armageddon for SSI is still probably 30 years away.

4 - Treasury notes are for 30 years or less.

5 - With a Treasury note the gubmint has a legal obligation to repay, even if it is with fiat currency ... an SS payment is not guaranteed at all.

Anything else I can help you with?

LWW
09-03-2011, 06:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My father surely receives as large a SS check as possible (since he always earned and paid at the top of the possible taxation schedule for SS tax), and it is limited to $2,059 a month. Most SS checks are far lower. So what 'greed' is it you claim is involved here? These are modest stipends, not luxurious sinecures that prop up high living standards. </div></div>

1 - The max SS payment is a good bit higher than $2,059 per month.

2 - At your age I assume your father is at least in his 70's ... meaning he got in on the ground floor of the Ponzi pyramid and is reaping the rewards of his good fortune.

3 - By 2050, assuming the retirement age is not raised beyond age 70, there will be 3 workers for every 1 SS recipient.

4 - The average SS check is $1,177 a month.

5 - Assuming tou could get SS to run at zero overhead, increase the retirement age to 70, eliminate early retirement, eliminate SS-D, and stop the expansion of the human life span ... the average worker would have to pay $392.00 per month is SS taxes plus the amount set aside for their own retirement. The actual reality of the numbers is of course far worse thatn this land of unicorns assumption.

OH DEAR! (http://www.justsayno.50megs.com/wr_ratio.html)

OH MY! (http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit)


SHAZAM! (http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/13/~/average-monthly-social-security-benefit-for-a-retired-worker)

LWW
09-03-2011, 06:11 PM
As a side note ... another complicating factor is that SS tables assumed a constant growth rate in the population. We are already at a replacement birth rate and trending downwards.

The new citizens that would have paid in and helped keep SS viable for a longer period ... were aborted.

Ahhh ... progress.

cushioncrawler
09-03-2011, 06:29 PM
The 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend ("Hitler Youth") was a German Waffen SS armoured division during World War II. The Hitlerjugend was unique because the majority of its junior enlisted men were drawn from members of the Hitler Youth, while the senior NCOs and officers were generally veterans of the Eastern Front.

The division, with 20,540 personnel, first saw action on 7 June 1944 as part of the German defense of the Caen area during the Normandy campaign. The battle for Normandy took its toll on the division and it came out of the Falaise pocket with a divisional strength of 12,000 men.

Following the invasion battles, the division was sent to Germany for refitting. On 16 December 1944, the division was committed against the US Army in the Battle of the Bulge. After the failure of the Ardennes offensive the division was sent east to fight the Red Army near Budapest. The 12th SS eventually withdrew into Austria; on 8 May 1945, the surviving 10,000 men surrendered to the US Army at Enns.

The reputation of the division has been affected by war crimes committed by members of the division during the early battles in Normandy.

Gayle in MD
09-04-2011, 09:49 AM
One of the worst things that happened to Social Security, was Ronald Reagan's Amnesty, which only drew more undocumented workers, into the country.


Additionally, corporate income tax evasion, tremendously denied us the Social Security funds that were needed, as well, corporate outsourcing of American Jobs, and hiding trillions off shore...for decades.

If we are losing solvency, we can think the same welthy corporate thieves, who have played the biggest role in all of our economic problems, and for which Repiglicans prefer to blame the poor, and the Middle Class, hard working American workers, instead, as they continue to legislate to rob more of them, to give more to the wealthy.

Corporate profitability, does not create jobs.

G.

llotter
09-04-2011, 10:46 AM
The question should not be whether SS is a Ponzi scheme or not (it is) but why is the federal government involved in any scheme concerning citizen retirement? SS is clearly unconstitutional, a blatant usurpation of our liberty and it's run by a bunch of incompetent boobs. The same could be said about healthcare and dozens of other intrusions that prove the feds ruin just about everything they touch and are bringing down this Great Experiment in Freedom.

LWW
09-04-2011, 10:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One of the worst things that happened to Social Security, was Ronald Reagan's Amnesty, which only drew more undocumented workers, into the country.

G.


</div></div>

Of all your stupid statements ... and they have been legion ... that is top 10 material.

Soflasnapper
09-04-2011, 11:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The question should not be whether SS is a Ponzi scheme or not (it is) but why is the federal government involved in any scheme concerning citizen retirement? SS is clearly unconstitutional, a blatant usurpation of our liberty and it's run by a bunch of incompetent boobs. The same could be said about healthcare and dozens of other intrusions that prove the feds ruin just about everything they touch and are bringing down this Great Experiment in Freedom. </div></div>

It was found Constitutional under SCOTUS review twice in 1937. As that is the final test for whether something is Constitutional or not under our system of government, the answer appears decided in the affirmative as to SS. Note, this was the same SCOTUS that had struck down some New Deal programs on Constitutional grounds.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.

Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[24] (1937) held, in a 54 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Great Depression, "[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare". The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Constitution. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "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". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.
</div></div>

Soflasnapper
09-04-2011, 11:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a side note ... another complicating factor is that SS tables assumed a constant growth rate in the population. We are already at a replacement birth rate and trending downwards.

The new citizens that would have paid in and helped keep SS viable for a longer period ... were aborted.

Ahhh ... progress. </div></div>

WHICH SS tables (what year) do you refer to? Do you assert the Greenspan Commission assumed constant growth rate in the population, for example?

LWW
09-04-2011, 11:49 AM
Actually ... you are correct. The SCOTUS upheld SS under the congressional right to tax.

They also de facto ruled that it is a Ponzi scheme in that as a citizen you are required to pay the tax but not entitled to ever receive a dime back.

llotter
09-04-2011, 03:37 PM
I don't need no stinkin' court to tell me what is clear in the plain language of the Constitution. One branch of incompetent boobs making up the law as they go along is no better that the other two branches doing the same thing.

Maybe what we need, when conservatives take over, is to pack the court, like FDR threatened, with people who believe in the Rule of Law and the Constitution.

Soflasnapper
09-04-2011, 06:40 PM
If anyone is free to interpret our founding documents for himself, and expects to have such an interpretation honored by all others, it is a form of nihilism. A free-for-all, and then really, the choice that is imposed would be by force of arms by the 'winning' side, or popular vote, or something.

Why do you hate our institutions and our form of government?

Soflasnapper
09-04-2011, 06:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually ... you are correct. The SCOTUS upheld SS under the congressional right to tax.

They also de facto ruled that it is a Ponzi scheme in that as a citizen you are required to pay the tax but not entitled to ever receive a dime back. </div></div>

This is an overly broad brush you paint with.

Of course, people are entitled to SS benefits. They are CALLED entitlements, or entitlement programs. These cannot be taken from anyone except by due process of law (another SCOTUS ruling). Unless they are taken away by due process of law, if someone shows up who qualifies, they get the current benefit under law.

What you are referring to is that there is no contractual right that necessarily survives the due process of law, in that the law which provides for these entitlements could itself be changed or repealed.

That's true enough, but that's not actually what you said or implied. These are indeed entitlements, and entitlements at the lawful statutory rates of payment, unless the law is changed, as it has been several times, and undoubtedly will be changed again in the future.

Gayle in MD
09-04-2011, 09:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't need no stinkin' court to tell me what is clear in the plain language of the Constitution. One branch of incompetent boobs making up the law as they go along is no better that the other two branches doing the same thing.

Maybe what we need, when conservatives take over, is to pack the court, like FDR threatened, with people who believe in the Rule of Law and the Constitution.

</div></div>

Coming from a person who refuses to accept amendments to the Constitution, as the Founders intended, and actually invades the personal space of others, when they are in the midst of exercising their Constitional rights, your statements are a joke!


FAR WORSEyou are a person who praises murderers, who who care not a wit about our laws, take the law into their own hands, hide in the bushes, and KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Your post is an exercise in gross hypocrisy!

G.

LWW
09-05-2011, 05:32 AM
Do you actually <span style='font-size: 11pt'>KNOW</span> anything?

Let me use the SCOTUS and the Social Security Administration and the law founding the SSA as sources:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>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</span>, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: </span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>"The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress."</span> Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.</span> </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html)

Soflasnapper
09-05-2011, 11:44 AM
Yes, but that's exactly what I said.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Me (above): What you are referring to is that there is no contractual right that necessarily survives the due process of law, in that the law which provides for these entitlements could itself be changed or repealed.

That's true enough</div></div>

Do you actually KNOW anything?

Yes, at least that you are very hard of reading. Everything you highlighted by using a large font I agreed to, and said myself.

What you appear to miss is that FOR the Congress to change these rules, change the eligibility requirements, or cancel the program altogether, etc. (which I've agreed they can do), requires them to change the LAW currently in effect, under due process of law. Meaning also getting the president's signature, or overcoming his veto, and make a new real law. They cannot do so capriciously, or by some short cut, but by enacting a law addressing the change.

All kinds of markets see changed rules that harm some participants, with far less due process required, and they are not considered Ponzi schemes. Crooked markets where connected parties receive unwarranted help from 'regulators,' yes, but not Ponzi schemes.

LWW
09-05-2011, 12:39 PM
Obviously the law need not be changed.

All that must happen is that a future board of bureaucracy decide not to pay ... as dear leader threatened to do just recently.

llotter
09-05-2011, 02:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The question should not be whether SS is a Ponzi scheme or not (it is) but why is the federal government involved in any scheme concerning citizen retirement? SS is clearly unconstitutional, a blatant usurpation of our liberty and it's run by a bunch of incompetent boobs. The same could be said about healthcare and dozens of other intrusions that prove the feds ruin just about everything they touch and are bringing down this Great Experiment in Freedom. </div></div>


It was found Constitutional under SCOTUS review twice in 1937. As that is the final test for whether something is Constitutional or not under our system of government, the answer appears decided in the affirmative as to SS. Note, this was the same SCOTUS that had struck down some New Deal programs on Constitutional grounds.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.

Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[24] (1937) held, in a 54 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Great Depression, "[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare". The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Constitution. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "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". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.
</div></div> </div></div>


If you don't have a mind of your own, as most of us do, I don't hold you responsible for letting others do you thinking for you. If you believe you are upholding your responsibility by simply accepting what your governors tell you then do not expect to have your freedom for long.

We are in the trouble we are in because we have let the SC pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution and legislate from the bench. The Rule of Law has been undermined by the arbitrary whims of those men in black robes. It is not nihilism that I invite but merely courts that respect the plain meaning of our Founding documents.

Soflasnapper
09-05-2011, 04:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obviously the law need not be changed.

All that must happen is that a future board of bureaucracy decide not to pay ... as dear leader threatened to do just recently. </div></div>

The 'threat' to not pay was because of an impending force majeure, that such payments might be forbidden by binding law. (The debt ceiling law, in this case.)

Soflasnapper
09-05-2011, 04:39 PM
We are in the trouble we are in because we have let the SC pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution and legislate from the bench.

I don't disagree with that. The mere 'dicta,' not even a ruling but a casual remark IN a ruling, created the right of corporations as persons. Much evil has proceeded from this erroneous dicta, including the Citizens United ruling on the unlimited use of corporate money to influence elections.

The Rule of Law has been undermined by the arbitrary whims of those men in black robes. It is not nihilism that I invite but merely courts that respect the plain meaning of our Founding documents.

Again, not to disagree, but I would insist that any corrective action follow the law as well. What would you propose-- civil insurrection, taking to the streets, street justice for those you claim are evil-doers?

You say you want a revolution? Well, we'd all like to see the plan. If you're talking 'bout destruction, well you know, you can count me out.

LWW
09-06-2011, 02:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obviously the law need not be changed.

All that must happen is that a future board of bureaucracy decide not to pay ... as dear leader threatened to do just recently. </div></div>

The 'threat' to not pay was because of an impending force majeure, that such payments might be forbidden by binding law. (The debt ceiling law, in this case.) </div></div>

Threat to not pay was a scare tactic to rile the uninformed, the naive, the hyper partisan, and the just plain stupid into calling their congressvolk and demanding a settlement to the debt ceiling log jam ... the money to pay SS was going to be there and every thinking person knew it.

To believe otherwise is a sign of a simple mind.

LWW
09-06-2011, 02:24 AM
Yet the democrook party has been supported by corporations, who extorted money from members, for decades.

They way overreached by demanding that only corporations which agreed with their agenda be allowed to contribute.

Truth.

It's a beautiful thing.

llotter
09-06-2011, 07:34 AM
'Mere dicta', how hoity toity sounding. Citizens United is only a year old so can hardly be the cause of our out-of-control government. Plus, limiting citizen political action only imposes more restrictions on our freedom and we have had way too much of that already.

Those preaching violence and doing violence invariably come from the Left and in case you haven't noticed, are are in the middle of a revolution now and the violence of the left is being preached everyday.

LWW
09-06-2011, 08:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'Mere dicta', how hoity toity sounding. </div></div>

Isn't he cute when he tries to act like an intellectual.

Soflasnapper
09-07-2011, 12:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet the democrook party has been supported by corporations, who extorted money from members, for decades.

They way overreached by demanding that only corporations which agreed with their agenda be allowed to contribute.

Truth.

It's a beautiful thing. </div></div>

It's true that the Democratic Party began to brand itself the 'permanent party of Congress' in the '80s, to try to get corporate monies into the party, when it appeared the GOP had an immortal lock on the WH.

And it's therefore true as well (congratulations, a rare two-fer for you!) that this began and has been taking place for decades, as you say. About 30 years plus or minus, reaching its apotheosis in the very strong corporate fundraising of Clinton's time, based on the legal scam called 'soft money,' which was interpreted to allow unlimited giving from corporations so long as it went to the parties for things deemed not campaign-related.

But mentioning this truth is to ignore the larger truth, that the Democratic Party did this out of self-defense, because of the far larger then, and continuing far larger, donations of corporations to the GOP. Perhaps Obama's eye-popping take of some $600 millions last time around saw the Democratic Party with more corporate donations finally, although I'm not sure that is the case even then.

Leading to the conclusion that although the Democratic Party has evidently signed a long-term lease with corporate backers, the GOP is bought-and-paid for as a subsidiary to those corporate backers, and is wholly owned by them.

Soflasnapper
09-07-2011, 12:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'Mere dicta', how hoity toity sounding. Citizens United is only a year old so can hardly be the cause of our out-of-control government. Plus, limiting citizen political action only imposes more restrictions on our freedom and we have had way too much of that already.

Those preaching violence and doing violence invariably come from the Left and in case you haven't noticed, are are in the middle of a revolution now and the violence of the left is being preached everyday. </div></div>

'Dicta.' An important legal term that you should look up if you don't know to what I refer. Especially look into the dicta that 'ruled' corporations were persons. ('Ruled' in scare quotes, because it wasn't the topic of their actual ruling, or any part of the ruling, but side commentary with no actual binding effect in stare decisis law.)

'Stare decisis.' An important legal term that you should look up if you dn't know to what I refer.

Soflasnapper
09-07-2011, 12:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'Mere dicta', how hoity toity sounding. </div></div>

Isn't he cute when he tries to act like an intellectual. </div></div>

Not sure about that one. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

Far cuter to be sure than your act as a low-rent beginner skills propagandist, of course.

LWW
09-07-2011, 12:34 PM
I have never claimed to be low rent or at a beginner skills in anything ... although my 2 rail banks still need a lot of work.

llotter
09-08-2011, 06:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'Mere dicta', how hoity toity sounding. Citizens United is only a year old so can hardly be the cause of our out-of-control government. Plus, limiting citizen political action only imposes more restrictions on our freedom and we have had way too much of that already.

Those preaching violence and doing violence invariably come from the Left and in case you haven't noticed, are are in the middle of a revolution now and the violence of the left is being preached everyday. </div></div>

'Dicta.' An important legal term that you should look up if you don't know to what I refer. Especially look into the dicta that 'ruled' corporations were persons. ('Ruled' in scare quotes, because it wasn't the topic of their actual ruling, or any part of the ruling, but side commentary with no actual binding effect in stare decisis law.)

'Stare decisis.' An important legal term that you should look up if you dn't know to what I refer.

</div></div>

Unfortunately, many a good person has fallen victim to the ruling class jargon that is designed to obfuscate rather then enlighten. Their esoteric vocabulary is not part of the language of our Constitution which the average person can understand without reference to it. It is Orwellian to subvert plain language to foist an agenda onto the public but has been highly successful for ruling class.

Soflasnapper
09-08-2011, 02:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Founding Fathers: A Brief Overview

The 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention were a distinguished body of men who represented a cross section of 18th-century American leadership. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Almost all of them were well-educated men</span> of means who were dominant in their communities and states, and many were also prominent in national affairs. Virtually every one had taken part in the Revolution; at least 29 had served in the Continental forces, most of them in positions of command.

Political Experience

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The group, as a whole, had extensive political experience. At the time of the convention, four-fifths, or 41 individuals, were or had been members of the Continental Congress</span>. Mifflin and Gorham had served as president of the body. The only ones who lacked congressional experience were Bassett, Blair, Brearly, Broom, Davie, Dayton, Alexander Martin, Luther Martin, Mason, McClurg, Paterson, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Strong, and Yates. Eight men (Clymer, Franklin, Gerry, Robert Morris, Read, Sherman, Wilson, and Wythe) had signed the Declaration of Independence. Six (Carroll, Dickinson, Gerry, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, and Sherman) had affixed their signatures to the Articles of Confederation. But only two, Sherman and Robert Morris, underwrote all three of the nation's basic documents. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Practically all of the 55 delegates had experience in colonial and state government. Dickinson, Franklin, Langdon, Livingston, Alexander Martin, Randolph, Read, and Rutledge had been governors, and the majority had held county and local offices.</span>

Occupations

The delegates practiced a wide range of occupations, and many men pursued more than one career simultaneously. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges. </span></div></div>

The founding fathers were not simple farmers. Most were lawyers or had legal educations, along with a considerable familiarity with the important philosophers' ideas on government. Most were politicians as well.

The idea that one can naively read the product of lawyers, without the knowledge of legal terms and writing, and the context in which various terms of art used were defined, is simply wrong.

llotter
09-08-2011, 02:57 PM
It takes some convoluted reasoning to come up with a constitutional basis for most of what the federal government does these days. For example, healthcare or retirement spending or placing limits on campaign spending simply are not within the enumerated powers as listed. I do not believe that those that ratified that document would have done so if they were told that there was an alternate meaning understandable to only a few elitists.

Soflasnapper
09-08-2011, 07:01 PM
After Alexander Hamilton, one of the key authors of the Federalist Papers explaining and advocating for the adoption of the Constitution, took office as Washington's Sec. Treasury, he fathered policies that took effect to establish a national bank, and to take on the debts of the States.

As I've mentioned before, neither of these policies comports with the strictly delimited powers of the federal government. At least, I cannot find anything there in enumerated powers that suffices for these policies to be legitimate, under a strict constructionist interpretation.

That Hamilton proposed them, and the first US presidential administration agreed and got them enacted, must then mean that as early as is possible-- in the very first administration-- an extended meaning for the bare terms of the federal government powers was already in place, and accepted as common sense-- by the Founders themselves who formed the government and were the government at the time.

Indeed, that was Hamilton's reasoning:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While it a National Bank was not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, Hamilton felt that the elastic clause (Art I., Sect. 8, Clause 18) gave the government the power to create such a body.</div></div> here (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/thomasjefferson/a/tj_lapurchase.htm)

What is that clause? I've not heard it called the 'elastic clause,' but rather, 'the necessary and proper clause.'

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Likewise in the Louisiana Purchase. No power of the federal government to buy land, and no power of the president to do that outside of Congressional action. In fact, Jefferson had fiercely opposed the national bank on exactly this ground-- failure to find any enumerated power allowing it. (same link above has this claim). And yet, when it came to his turn, he did the same as Hamilton.

Gayle in MD
09-08-2011, 08:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The question should not be whether SS is a Ponzi scheme or not (it is) but why is the federal government involved in any scheme concerning citizen retirement? SS is clearly unconstitutional, a blatant usurpation of our liberty and it's run by a bunch of incompetent boobs. The same could be said about healthcare and dozens of other intrusions that prove the feds ruin just about everything they touch and are bringing down this Great Experiment in Freedom. </div></div>

You're Ignorance is stunning!

Too bad you don't know it.

Social Security is NOT a Ponzi Scheme. It is a social safety net, which has been the most successful program in history, and it is solvent.

It is being targeted by a radical RW, unAmerican, anti-Constitutional, Repiglican Fascist Party, which only represents the wealthy, and is fascist in all of their policies.



G.

LWW
09-09-2011, 02:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After Alexander Hamilton, one of the key authors of the Federalist Papers explaining and advocating for the adoption of the Constitution, took office as Washington's Sec. Treasury, he fathered policies that took effect to establish a national bank, and to take on the debts of the States. </div></div>

Untrue.

LWW
09-09-2011, 02:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While it a National Bank was not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, Hamilton felt that the elastic clause (Art I., Sect. 8, Clause 18) gave the government the power to create such a body.</div></div> here (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/thomasjefferson/a/tj_lapurchase.htm)

What is that clause? I've not heard it called the 'elastic clause,' but rather, 'the necessary and proper clause.'

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. </div></div>

So you had heard of it. The power the bank was set up to enforce was section 8, clause 5:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;</div></div>

You insist upon perpetuating the myth that the bank was something akin to the current Fed ... it most certainly was not.

Following the revolution there were quite literally dozens, if not hundreds, of different currencies being used across the land.

The purpose of the bank was to slowly convert them to dollars by setting up trading rates for said currencies.

The first time you peddled this myth I assumed you had made a common error.

Now, after having been shown the reality of history ... I can only assume that you are intentionally perpetuating what you know to be a falsehood.

llotter
09-09-2011, 07:27 AM
The case you are making is nonsense on its face. Because this or that particular exception may exist does not undermine the document itself. The idea should be to uphold the law, not point to where we have failed in the past. If the Constitution does not mean limited government, it has no meaning at all.

Gayle in MD
09-09-2011, 07:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The case you are making is nonsense on its face. Because this or that particular exception may exist does not undermine the document itself. The idea should be to uphold the law, not point to where we have failed in the past. If the Constitution does not mean limited government, it has no meaning at all. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The idea should be to uphold the law, </div></div>

BWA HA HA HA!

Gross hypocrisy, given your history of praising murderers who have no respect for our laws, our Constitution, or citizen's rights, protected by The Constitution!!!

llotter
09-09-2011, 08:41 AM
It is you, dear Gayle, that support the mass murderers in the abortion industry. There is NO difference between this horrid practice than the gas chambers of the Nazis and you are the one turning on those special 'showers'. So callous you have become that you will go to any length to keep the murders 'legal' and salve your perverted soul.

Gayle in MD
09-09-2011, 08:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is you, dear Gayle, that support the mass murderers in the abortion industry. There is NO difference between this horrid practice than the gas chambers of the Nazis and you are the one turning on those special 'showers'. So callous you have become that you will go to any length to keep the murders 'legal' and salve your perverted soul.

</div></div>

I've never had an abortion, nor praised a murderer.

I've never sought to invade another person's privacy, nor their personal rights and decisions.

I've never supported law breakers, nor taught my children that they have a right ot impose their views and opinions, into the personal lives and decisions, of others.

I've never invaded the personal space of others, and in the process, broken Federal Laws, as you have clearly done.

It is you who hold a perverted soul, as the Gospel of Jesus, proves....

G.

Soflasnapper
09-09-2011, 09:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After Alexander Hamilton, one of the key authors of the Federalist Papers explaining and advocating for the adoption of the Constitution, took office as Washington's Sec. Treasury, he fathered policies that took effect to establish a national bank, and to take on the debts of the States. </div></div>

Untrue. </div></div>

Really? What part? [Joe Pesci as David Ferrie, my favorite movie line)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton was the primary author of the economic policies of the George Washington Administration, especially the funding of the state debts by the Federal government, the establishment of a national bank, a system of tariffs, and friendly trade relations with Britain. He became the leader of the Federalist Party </div></div> Wiki on Hamilton

Soflasnapper
09-09-2011, 09:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The case you are making is nonsense on its face. Because this or that particular exception may exist does not undermine the document itself. The idea should be to uphold the law, not point to where we have failed in the past. If the Constitution does not mean limited government, it has no meaning at all. </div></div>

I disagree. What I've shown is that the interpretation of the clause was an expansive one from the beginning, and interpreted that way by the Founders themselves immediately upon the country's founding as a Constitutional Republic, not some future liberal invention centuries later.

Soflasnapper
09-09-2011, 09:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While it a National Bank was not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, Hamilton felt that the elastic clause (Art I., Sect. 8, Clause 18) gave the government the power to create such a body.</div></div> here (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/thomasjefferson/a/tj_lapurchase.htm)

What is that clause? I've not heard it called the 'elastic clause,' but rather, 'the necessary and proper clause.'

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. </div></div>

So you had heard of it. The power the bank was set up to enforce was section 8, clause 5:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;</div></div>

You insist upon perpetuating the myth that the bank was something akin to the current Fed ... it most certainly was not.

Following the revolution there were quite literally dozens, if not hundreds, of different currencies being used across the land.

The purpose of the bank was to slowly convert them to dollars by setting up trading rates for said currencies.

The first time you peddled this myth I assumed you had made a common error.

Now, after having been shown the reality of history ... I can only assume that you are intentionally perpetuating what you know to be a falsehood.
</div></div>

A. So what was Thomas Jefferson's fierce dissent over its creation all about?

B. Why couldn't these functions be performed at the Treasury Dept. itself, or by the US Mint (or its creation, if not existing at that time)? Clearly, the purpose of the bank was not limited to what you say, as it was unnecessary for that purpose.

Probably had something rather to do with taking on the debts of the states, which he did, which I mentioned, and which you haven't explained as to its allowance under the enumerated powers.

llotter
09-09-2011, 11:51 AM
What you have shown is that the desire to go beyond the clear meaning of the Constitution is always present and that words on paper do not enforce themselves. As Jefferson noted, 'the price of liberty is eternal vigilance' and I think he also said that, 'the tree of liberty must be nourished from time to time with the blood of patriots'. Apparent the fragility of liberty was appreciated much more than it is today when there seems to be nothing that is beyond the reach of our federal dictators.