Politicspolitics

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:31 AM

Showing that "facts about Social Security" aren't real facts

The poster claimed that

1. That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.
--Now its no longer voluntary.

FALSE. Contrary to the e-mail’s very first claim, FDR never promised that "the program would be completely voluntary." It is supported by taxes, and participation has never been voluntary. As historian DeWitt states: "From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes. "

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/fdrs-voluntary-social-security/

2. That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program.
--Now its 7.65% on the first $90,000!

FALSE. Another false claim is that FDR promised participants would pay only "1% of the first $1,400" of income. The law FDR signed taxed income up to $3,000, for one thing. And while the rate was 1 percent for the first few years, the law FDR signed raised it incrementally in 1940, 1943, 1946 and 1949, when it reached 3 percent.

3. That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.

--Now its no longer tax deductible.

FALSE. Also false is the statement that Social Security contributions "would be deductible from their income for tax purposes." The opposite is true. Section 803 of the law Roosevelt signed specifically says Social Security payroll taxes "shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year." So the claim made later in the e-mail – that Democrats "eliminated the income tax deduction" for payroll taxes – cannot possibly be true. There was never a deduction to eliminate.

4. That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program and no other government program. --Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and spent!

FALSE. The message claims that FDR promised Social Security funds would be used "for no other government program," but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it." This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits. As DeWitt states: "here has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government." All LBJ did in 1968 was to make Social Security taxes and spending part of a "unified budget." As DeWitt notes, this was an accounting issue and "has no affect on the actual operations of the (Social Security) Trust Fund itself."

5. That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
--Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed!

FALSE. (Is anyone detecting a pattern here?) I can't continue to quote my source because of copy-right laws, but The Treasury Dept, not Roosevelt, determined whether to tax or not. Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law that permitted taxation of Soc. Security in 1983.

Lastly, of course illegal immigrants cannot draw Soc. Security. Even native born citizens can't draw Soc. Security unless they've paid in.

*****

Well done, Dixie. You do your side proud to show the pack-of-lies e-mails that you eagerly consume and pass on as truth.

65 replies, 2568 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply Showing that "facts about Social Security" aren't real facts (Original post)
JoeHill Apr 2015 OP
JacoBukowski Apr 2015 #1
JosephNobles Apr 2015 #2
JoeHill Apr 2015 #3
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #4
Satan Apr 2015 #5
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #7
liberalguy Apr 2015 #13
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #15
JoeHill Apr 2015 #22
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #30
liberalguy Apr 2015 #35
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #36
JoeHill Apr 2015 #43
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #47
JoeHill Apr 2015 #48
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #49
New Deal Democrat Apr 2015 #54
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #55
New Deal Democrat Apr 2015 #58
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #59
New Deal Democrat Apr 2015 #60
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #63
New Deal Democrat May 2015 #65
liberalguy Apr 2015 #28
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #31
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #37
JoeHill Apr 2015 #19
Banshee 3 Actual Apr 2015 #21
JoeHill Apr 2015 #23
Banshee 3 Actual Apr 2015 #24
BuzzClik Apr 2015 #6
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #8
BuzzClik Apr 2015 #9
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #10
BuzzClik Apr 2015 #11
JoeHill Apr 2015 #44
JosephNobles Apr 2015 #12
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #14
New Deal Democrat Apr 2015 #25
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #34
JosephNobles Apr 2015 #38
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #39
New Deal Democrat Apr 2015 #40
JoeHill Apr 2015 #45
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #46
New Deal Democrat Apr 2015 #50
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #51
Dexter Morgan Apr 2015 #16
New Deal Democrat Apr 2015 #18
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #20
New Deal Democrat Apr 2015 #41
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #17
JoePolitics Apr 2015 #27
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #32
JoePolitics Apr 2015 #62
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #64
JoePolitics Apr 2015 #26
Gamle-ged Apr 2015 #33
nolidad Apr 2015 #29
New Deal Democrat Apr 2015 #42
nolidad Apr 2015 #52
New Deal Democrat Apr 2015 #53
nolidad Apr 2015 #56
New Deal Democrat Apr 2015 #57
nolidad Apr 2015 #61

Response to JoeHill (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:43 AM

1. Another day, another cut-and-pasted post of right wing lies....

You get to expect these OPs just by looking at who is doing the posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeHill (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:51 AM

2. Debunked in 2009!

Well, at least Dixie is getting his cut and paste BS about Social Security from this century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JosephNobles (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:55 AM

3. Krugman calls these "zombie lies" because no matter how many times you kill

them, they keep springing back to life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeHill (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:58 AM

4. SNOPES has had this since 2005, but the ACTUAL fact remains that our Ponzi scheme is collapsing...

... and has been collapsing even before the Baby Boomers began to retire in 2011.



Here's the skinny: http://discussionist.com/1015431834

But beat your selective dead horse as long as you wish...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:15 PM

5. And the way to fix that is to raise the cap.

When the time came to repeal Chimpy's tax "cuts" for rich tax dodgers. there was all sorts of outcry that "$250K a year isn't rich".

Well, OK.... so why is somebody making that $250K a year only paying for Social Security on less than half of it, as the cap currently sits at only the first $118K, last time a Devil checked.

Raise the cap. Hell, if the Kochs & Waltons paid their fair share of Social Security, it would be solvent forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satan (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:21 PM

7. Oh, my goodness! $77,000,000,000 per year? And then "rising steeply?"...

The Trustees project that this annual cash-flow deficit will average about $77 billion between 2014 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to its sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete while the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

Forbes: Koch Brothers Now Worth $50 Billion

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/21/324969/forbes-koch-brothers-now-worth-50-billion/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satan (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:46 PM

13. Exactly. If 30 years gdp growth that has gone entirely to the rich had gone to workers instead

 

... there would be no problem because wages would be adequate to pay SS taxes.

So the next best thing to giving workers the benefit of their increased productivity is to make the rich people who took the income, also take the taxes that go along with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 01:49 PM

15. So, give us a list of the rich people you want to pauperize, and their estimated net worth. Then..

... tell us how much we can safely confiscate without driving the economy into a deep depression...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:29 PM

22. False dichotomy. We don't have to pauperize the rich.

Just tax them the way they were taxed when Clinton was President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeHill (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:42 PM

30. In case you missed this...

The Trustees project that this annual cash-flow deficit will average about $77 billion between 2014 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to its sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete while the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. 

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/ 

Forbes: Koch Brothers Now Worth $50 Billion 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/21/324969/forbes-koch-brothers-now-worth-50-billion/ 




As of 2009, the total net worth of Americans and non-profits came to 55,000 billion Dollars, or 55 trillion. That's NET, not the taxes it might produce, it's the total value, what might be confiscated, if you were of a mind to do so.
The government has provided us with Social Security and Medicare, and with the EXPENSE of those programs which, combined, a have an unfunded liability of $23 Trillion (OASDI) and $38.6 Trillion (Medicare).

Basically, if you held a fire sale to the rest of the world, and you got top Dollar, that would cover our joint debt, with $6 Trillion left over for a last vacation for everyone before we're all evicted, penniless..


http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/tr/2013/IV_B_LRest.html#267528
http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/medicare-faces-unfunded-liability-386t-or-328404-each-us-household

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:55 PM

35. The Koch brothers are EACH worth nearly $50 billion.

 

$42.2 + $42.7 to be exact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:59 PM

36. Sure, why not? Peanuts as measured against our SS and Medicare unfunded debt...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:29 PM

43. Those figures are wildly inflated.

The annual GDP of the United States is about 17 Trillion dollars. Of course, Medicare can't cost more than the entire GDP of the United States. Same with Soc. Security.

Soc. Security is exactly like every other gov't run pension around the world. They do it, we can do it. Quit blubbering about impossible scenarios.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeHill (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:41 PM

47. I spoke of the unfunded DEBT, which is HUGE...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #47)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:08 PM

48. Unfunded debt for the next thousand years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeHill (Reply #48)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:22 PM

49. For as long as it exists, or until Greece pays it... maybe Germany...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #49)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:04 AM

54. What is unfunded debt?

Isn't all debt unfunded? Can you give me an example of funded debt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #54)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:57 AM

55. More properly, "unfunded liability"...

The amount, at any given time, by which future payment obligations exceed the present value of funds available to pay them. For example, a pension plan's payment obligations, including all income, death and termination benefits owed, are compared to the plan's present investment experience, and if the total plan obligations exceed the projected plan assets at any point in time, the plan has an unfunded liability.

- - - -

As SS has promised to pay "x" numbers of current and future retirees and other beneficiaries, based on a current formula, and as it's cashing in the "IOUs" in its account, and as sufficient FICA funds are not coming in, the difference between what SS is obligated to pay, and what it will be able to pay is the "unfunded liability." There's also a complicated (to me) time factor to determine a Dollar value...

http://www.investorwords.com/19346/unfunded_liability.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #55)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:10 PM

58. Not proper at all, Social Security is fully funded.

It is self-supporting and it will last indefinitely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #58)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:21 PM

59. Nuh-UHHHH! Not as it's currently constructed and funded , and not as it currently pays out...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #59)

Wed Apr 29, 2015, 05:28 AM

60. Ha ha ha, thanks for the fun.

Right now I'm going trout fishing and maybe turkey hunting for a few days in the most beautiful place on earth. No internet, no cell phone reception, and besides I'll have lots better things to do than argue with strangers. While I'm gone, just remember Social Security is a self-sustaining social insurance program that will last forever just as FDR intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #60)

Wed Apr 29, 2015, 07:25 AM

63. No internet... are you INSAAAAAANE??? And.. I thought we had something.. SPECIAL...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #63)

Sat May 2, 2015, 02:40 PM

65. My furlough is over.

We caught a boatload of trout and camp food was great as always. I was rarely in a place where there was cell phone reception of any kind. Those trout streams are still pretty cold, glad I didn't fall in.

I'm not sure if I was getting away from real life or back to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:39 PM

28. 1) The Koch Brothers 2) all $100 billion of it.

 

The result wouldn't be a recession, on the contrary, it would create a mini stimulus and reclaim our democracy all at the same time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:43 PM

31. Yeahhhh, check out post #30...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 04:02 PM

37. Start the necessary legal paperwork, I'll wait...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:28 PM

19. That's a very informed observation.

Most people are completely unware of that . . . I was until Robert Reich point it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeHill (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:29 PM

21. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:30 PM

23. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeHill (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:32 PM

24. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:17 PM

6. Are you sure that chart shows what you think it does?

The chart shows that about 3 workers needed to support on retiree for the last 35 years. That's the best it's been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BuzzClik (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:28 PM

8. We began shipping jobs overseas gradually, from the late '70 and at increasing rates in the '90s...

... which pretty much killed our SS money coming in. There was a tiny bump from Reagan's SS changes, but it's been downhill since, and in 2011 the baby Boomers began retiring. Unless we get a very LARGE number of new payers into the system, it's insupportable, save by infusing huge amounts of general revenue Dollars... or by really large cuts in entitlements...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:29 PM

9. I understand the "unsupportable" part.

That's a recurring theme from many places.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BuzzClik (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:31 PM

10. Too much has been promised to too many for too long, and the resolution will be too painful...

... until it's too late, I do believe...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:43 PM

11. I get the feeling it will simply die a loud but quick death.

If only Gore had been able to put SS in a lock box.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BuzzClik (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:34 PM

44. Exactly. The gloom-and-doom is absurd.

The average retiree makes less 1,100 dollars a month. No way does that bankrupt the richest nation on the face of the earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:44 PM

12. Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme.

Ponzi schemes don't last 80 years and counting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JosephNobles (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 01:42 PM

14. As noted a time or five, it didn't begin as a Ponzi scheme, but as more and more beneficiaries...

... (read: early investors) were added, and more and more money poured out, and fewer and fewer workers (read: late investors) were paying IN to support the early investors, the characteristic financial structure of a Ponzi scheme materialized. Early investors get paid (that's me) later investors get screwed (that's most of you), by comparison, at least.

And a government can keep a scheme going for a longer time than any other purveyor of a Ponzi scheme, more people involved, more money moving around. But, after some period of time, you run out of other people's money, having added way too many additional beneficiaries to the basic retirement plan with the same number of people paying in. The load becomes insupportable and we're within a decade or so of that point...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:32 PM

25. It wasn't originally a Ponzi scheme. It didn't become a Ponzi scheme.

It isn't Ponzi scheme-like. It isn't a Ponzi scheme program related activity.

This has been proven to you repeatedly but you just keep blathering the same nonsense over and over.

I'm kinda of curious, where do you think Barack Obama was born? Do you believe Bill Clinton quietly did away with several dozen people who possessed incriminating evidence about him? Do you think people really landed on the moon, or was it faked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:54 PM

34. Definition of a Ponzi scheme...

Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator. Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent.

Ponzi schemes occasionally begin as legitimate businesses, until the business fails to achieve the returns expected. The business becomes a Ponzi scheme if it then continues under fraudulent terms. Whatever the initial situation, the perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme.

WIKI

SO, SS began as a legitimate" business" and now has become fraudulent with huge, unsupported debts that are owed to many millions of retirees... PONZI SCHEME...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 04:30 PM

38. "...if it then continues under fraudulent terms."

That's not happening here. Ponzi schemes don't publish their books openly. Ponzi schemes don't answer for their accounting to authorities over them every single year.

Furthermore, Social Security was never a business. It is insurance.

It may feel great to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme. It may feel wonderful to troll liberals by doing so. But you're wrong. Flat out, 100%, totally wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JosephNobles (Reply #38)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 04:42 PM

39. I'd say that the fact that there are SO many people who are unaware of the coming financial...

... failure of the scheme means that governmental misinformation on that very point constitutes fraud, as well as the actual financial fraud of dispensing monies well beyond the ability of the scheme to pay. Politicians have bought votes for DECADES by giving away the store, and understandably, they do NOT want to talk about what's happening now. As President Coolidge said, "The business of America is business."

... and quit bothering me, I got a riot to watch..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 05:59 PM

40. Forbes Magazine says you're full of shit.

As in Steve Forbes, former Republican Presidential candidate. I'll bet you think Forbes is guilty of liberal bias. They, as well as PolitiFact and CNN, thoroughly dismantled your trite idiocy. Here is a link to the Forbes article for you to ignore. Again:

No, Governor Perry, Social Security Is Not 'A Ponzi Scheme'

Here is the PolitiFact article for you to ignore, yet again:

Rick Perry says Social Security is a Ponzi scheme - FALSE

Here again is the CNN article for you to ignore again:

Is Social Security a 'Ponzi scheme'? - FALSE

Do yourself a favor, go back to sleep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:37 PM

45. Right on, NDDem!

The average soc. sec. recipient receives less than 1,100 a month. The Cons think that the richest country on earth can't afford this pittance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:38 PM

46. Actually, they say Perry is full of shit. Perry went too far, all three linked pieces seem...

... to first quote Perry 's comment that nothing would be there for the younger workers, then use identical information from SS spokespersons. The disaster I speak of is the anticipated 25 % cut, estimated to happen in 2033 to people then - currently receiving SS, as well as new retirees.

People do not hear this about SS from SS, they have to go on line and work through a lot of info. A lack of information about the severe weakness of the scheme, ergo Ponzi!

When the payout is cut, the recipients will feel defrauded, Ponzi!

It will be a disaster for so many because so many improperly depend on SS alone, and it was not intended to be the sole means of retirement funding, but they will feel the loss when it comes.

As I said, way back yesterday:

At this point in time, nothing can be done WITHOUT damage. But if nothing IS done, the damage...

... will grow exponentially worse. The "nothing's gonna happen" view, the "it just needs a little tinkering" view ignores the trillions of Dollars of current obligation the scheme has already generated that, under current laws, needs to be paid to current and to future recipients. 

Of course, this can could be kicked down the road for a while longer, add more millions of illegal immigrants to the system, collecting their SS payroll tax, that's absolutely going to happen. Raise the earnings cut-off point to some huge figure, soak the rich so they pay much more into the scheme than they could ever hope to recoup, the envy factor will make that popular. 

The choices are, to add more people to the system (ensuring an even larger disaster a decade or two later, after today's politicians have comfortably retired), to raise SS taxes (not happening, except the soak the rich part, which won't NEARLY fix the problem), and cut the outflow of funds to both current and future retirees (which needs to happen, but will only happen when the flames are coming through the door). 

That's it, the time has passed for less draconian measures, sorry...

________________

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:16 PM

50. They say you are full of shit too.

I went to all this trouble to repeatedly link the Forbes article and I don't think it's unreasonable of me to expect you to at least read the title:

No, Governor Perry, Social Security Is Not 'A Ponzi Scheme'

Your pretzel logic somehow lets you rationalize calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme - over and over and over - when you admit it was wrong for Perry to have done exactly the same thing. But I get it, you feel compelled to cling to this thoroughly discredited label, hoping in vain to favorably frame your dishonest argument.

OMG, it's the end of the world! We're all gonna die just because you say so! Our only hope is to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs! As you reminded us, "...nothing can be done WITHOUT damage. But if nothing IS done, the damage will grow exponentially worse." So what, do you think that you can make your bullshit into truth by repeating it over and over - and by citing your own silliness from the day before as an authoritative source? Of course you do.

But according to you, you are not beating a dead horse - somebody else is. Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch, this takes hubris to a whole new dimension. I've gotta give you credit for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #50)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:12 AM

51. I'll take that credit and use it when I lose around $6k annually, beginning sometime before 2033...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JosephNobles (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 01:55 PM

16. If you are forced to pay into it,why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:19 PM

18. Social Security is self-supporting and it will last indefinitely.

Ponzi scheme! Ponzi scheme! That's all you've got but no amount of logic slows you down a bit. It takes the breath away to see you of all people accusing someone else of beating a dead horse.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:29 PM

20. I am not getting sleepy, I am NOT geeeeee... zzzzzzzzzz...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 06:01 PM

41. I'm not sure there's much of a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeHill (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:00 PM

17. As often as the Left decries the horrors of Capitalism, it seems that NO ONE has more...

... FAITH in Capitalism and in capitalists than that very same Left, because that Left continually states that "The Rich" (who are capitalists) need only to be taxed more heavily and everything will be just fine!

If so, it's Capitalism that brought The Rich to that financial state, and it's Capitalism that will have been the source of the funds that will ultimately make everything just fine as The Rich are led to the guillotine.. or to the poor house, that has yet to be decided...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:35 PM

27. Your post needed this ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePolitics (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:45 PM

32. Your Honor, the witness is non-responsive! He just stands there, with a really strange grin...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #32)

Wed Apr 29, 2015, 06:45 AM

62. Says the guy who abandoned the OP topic if Social Security ...

... because it hurt to see those lies debunked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePolitics (Reply #62)

Wed Apr 29, 2015, 07:31 AM

64. No bunk. And I'm one of the (relatively) "early investors" who has received a good payout...

... unlike the current late investors. Oh well, why should I complain, it's been a good run.. for me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeHill (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:34 PM

26. Standard RW gish gallop

They repeat the lies no matter how often they've been debunked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePolitics (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:47 PM

33. Woah, you've convinced me! Of WHAT, I'd best not say..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeHill (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:40 PM

29. Well one thing is true

Social Security is unconstitutional!

The Fed is not allowed to create a mandatory retirement program for all citizens. It never has had that authority!

It can for federal employees and establish a voluntary program but a mandated supplemental income plan is only allowed by the states and towns and individuals thereof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 06:03 PM

42. Another loony myth.

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #42)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:49 AM

52. And you are buying exactly what the socialists are selling.

In your argument the federal government can take full control of your life and force you to do whatever they demand all under the levy taxes clause or promoting the general welfare clause.

If any court decides that liberalism is a threat to national security and bad for the general welfare and thus all liberals need to be rounded up for the good of the nation- will you go along????

Yes my example is extreme, but not so for this place like those who agree that all who disagree with AGW should be jailed.

The term promote does not mean mandate nor does taxing authority give the fed unbridled power either.

That is why the tenth amendment says that they can only go where the constitution spells it out. All else is just judicial opinion, which is why Liberals fight hard for SCOTUS picks now. They know that judges can reinterpret the Constitution at will and get whatever they want as long asd they can get a judge with the same view to go along with it.

Just like Roe v. Wade. That "right" was "discovered" in the" illuminations of the penumbra of the constitution."

Just as a side note IF FDR had gotten his way and got SCOTUS to increase to 13 justices we would have alot more onerous rules in effect today that would have been declared "constitutional". I bet He even would have gotten Manzanar ruled a constitutional necessity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #52)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:34 AM

53. The Supreme Court has spoken: Social Security is Constitutional.

According to the Constitution, their opinion trumps yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #53)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 04:21 PM

56. Then let me ask you

Was it constitutional to declare slaves property and you could kill them without punishment??

You believe separate but equal to be valid?

You must because a SCOTUS declared those constitutional

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #56)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:02 PM

57. Slavery was not only condoned by the Constitution, it was codified.

Things are different now thanks to Constitutional Amendments. One thing has remained consistent, however: The SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Neither you nor I have that burden to bear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #57)

Wed Apr 29, 2015, 05:53 AM

61. See that is where you have erred in your liberal indocrination

SCOTUS was never created to interpret the Constitution or to find hidden laws out of broad cloth, but to rule on disputes over laws passed as to whether those laws went against the Constitution or not. They were to be the ultimate enforcers of the law- not the interpreters. This new trick became popular under the presidency of your avatar. That is why so much inordinate attention is paid to who is president , because the other side fears them getting SCOT{US appts. made and laws "re-interpreted".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics