The True Believer
If Ryan is an extremist and his proposals are so unpopular, how has he won election seven times in a Democratic district? His lowest share of the vote was 57% — in his first race. He routinely wins over two-thirds of the vote. When Obama swept the nation in 2008, he carried Ryan’s district by 4 points. But at the same time, Ryan won reelection with 65% of the vote, meaning that 20% of Obama voters also voted for Paul Ryan.
Smart Democrats Should Be Worried
http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/08/smart-democrats-should-be-worried.html
M2RB: Judas Priest
Smart Democrats Should Be Worried
http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/08/smart-democrats-should-be-worried.html
M2RB: Judas Priest
"What I wish is that politicians would stop referring to these "entitlements" as if they're government giveaways like welfare.
I started paying into Medicare when the law was first passed in 1966, and paid into it for 40 years before receiving coverage. My employers paid their share. I'm still working, so I'm still paying into it. "Experts" tell us we'll get more out of Medicare than we put into it, but I would like them to calculate that according to the future value of the dollars we paid in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, not the current value -- and to add in what our employers paid.
Don't you think that if you told an insurance company you would pay premiums for 40 years before being covered, you could have a Cadilllac health plan?"
I started paying into Medicare when the law was first passed in 1966, and paid into it for 40 years before receiving coverage. My employers paid their share. I'm still working, so I'm still paying into it. "Experts" tell us we'll get more out of Medicare than we put into it, but I would like them to calculate that according to the future value of the dollars we paid in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, not the current value -- and to add in what our employers paid.
Don't you think that if you told an insurance company you would pay premiums for 40 years before being covered, you could have a Cadilllac health plan?"
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Social Security and Medicare
ARE considered entitlements under the law because, even though you paid
into the programmes, you have no right to them. Actually, I don't even
think "entitlement" is the correct word to describe them either since
you are not entitled to them under the law.
The Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v Nestor ruled that there is NO right to Social Security even if you pay into the programme for 40 years. Likewise, the Court ruled that there is NO right to Medicare regardless of how long you paid into the programme. There is no contractual nor property right in either. There could not be.
If there were a contractual right, then the government would be forced to pay regardless of its fiscal condition. As a farfetched example, the Federal government might be put in the position of having to pay Social Security & Medicare at full value while not having the money to defend the country against the Nazis and Imperial Japanese Army.
If there were a property right vested in Social Security and Medicare, then you would be able to bequeath the assets to your designated heirs. For African-Americans, this could be argued to be only fair since they, generally, use 10 years less of both programmes than whites and Asians. Nevertheless, the Federal government designates who can qualify for survivors' benefits. Your long-time, live-in GF is not going to qualify. If there was a property right, you would be able to leave it to her, which would further burden an already unsustainable system.
As I said, the Court has already held that you haven't any right to either. If Congress and a President wanted to enact a law either ending both programmes, instituting means-testing, or making them only available for single seniors with less than $5,000 in assets and less than $8,000 in annual income, they could and you would have NO LEGAL RECOURSE WHATSOEVER.
The Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v Nestor ruled that there is NO right to Social Security even if you pay into the programme for 40 years. Likewise, the Court ruled that there is NO right to Medicare regardless of how long you paid into the programme. There is no contractual nor property right in either. There could not be.
If there were a contractual right, then the government would be forced to pay regardless of its fiscal condition. As a farfetched example, the Federal government might be put in the position of having to pay Social Security & Medicare at full value while not having the money to defend the country against the Nazis and Imperial Japanese Army.
If there were a property right vested in Social Security and Medicare, then you would be able to bequeath the assets to your designated heirs. For African-Americans, this could be argued to be only fair since they, generally, use 10 years less of both programmes than whites and Asians. Nevertheless, the Federal government designates who can qualify for survivors' benefits. Your long-time, live-in GF is not going to qualify. If there was a property right, you would be able to leave it to her, which would further burden an already unsustainable system.
As I said, the Court has already held that you haven't any right to either. If Congress and a President wanted to enact a law either ending both programmes, instituting means-testing, or making them only available for single seniors with less than $5,000 in assets and less than $8,000 in annual income, they could and you would have NO LEGAL RECOURSE WHATSOEVER.
While FDR and Democrats may have sold Social Security as an individual
retirement account, you have NEVER paid "premiums" into a "private
account with your name on it."
"We have set up a savings
account for the old age of the worker. [Contributions would be made by
employers and employees via payroll taxes, which would be] held by the
government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1936
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1936
Au contraire!
"The
proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into
the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not
earmarked in any way."
- Helvering v. Davis, 310 U.S. 619 (1937)
- Helvering v. Davis, 310 U.S. 619 (1937)
You have not been paying premiums or defined contributions into an
insurance account. You have been paying taxes, which the Federal
government has been able to use for any purpose it deems necessary.
While I commiserate with everyone and would love for all of us to get a cheque back for what we have paid in, that money is LONG GONE. All that sits in the SSA vault are US Treasuries, which unlike Treasuries held by China, Japan, Goldman-Sachs, etc., may NOT be sold on the open market because they are intra-governmental holdings and divestiture is prohibited by Federal law. Further, since our Treasury is basically empty, the Treasuries held by the SSA are only worth anything for as long as China, Japan, et al., continue to be in the mood o loan us money.
If you want the truth about Social Security and Medicare, I recommend that you read this:
"Lies" About Social Security and Medicare Pandering Politicians Never Told You
While I commiserate with everyone and would love for all of us to get a cheque back for what we have paid in, that money is LONG GONE. All that sits in the SSA vault are US Treasuries, which unlike Treasuries held by China, Japan, Goldman-Sachs, etc., may NOT be sold on the open market because they are intra-governmental holdings and divestiture is prohibited by Federal law. Further, since our Treasury is basically empty, the Treasuries held by the SSA are only worth anything for as long as China, Japan, et al., continue to be in the mood o loan us money.
If you want the truth about Social Security and Medicare, I recommend that you read this:
"Lies" About Social Security and Medicare Pandering Politicians Never Told You
M2RB: Bob Dylan, live
(Even though I wrote it, I recommend it highly! LOL! No, truly, it is fully-sourced with data from the government and non-partisan sources).
(Even though I wrote it, I recommend it highly! LOL! No, truly, it is fully-sourced with data from the government and non-partisan sources).
Why can’t Progs realise that Social Security and Medicare are UNSUSTAINABLE -even Obama agrees – and something MUST be done? Further, why can they not understand that their utopian math of tax-the-evil-rich + cut-defence-to-the-bone = problem solved is fantastical, which smart Democrats, who have taken the time to actually study the issues and run the numbers, understand?
Grow up, already. I am perfectly willing to have a future where
Medicare and Social Security are no longer in existence because they
were breaking the government’s bank. I’m even willing — once Obama
leaves the White House and I can end my capital/professional strike — to
return to work and pay for your Social Security and Medicare without
complaint.
What I am not willing to do is to allow you to continue sticking your
heads in the sand and your fingers in your ears while screaming “La la
la la, I can’t hear you!” and demand the status quo or even more as the
collective country is on a runaway train heading off the cliff.
I will pay for your SS/MC, but you are going to have to accept some
changes (Why are Progressives so afraid of change?) so that you don’t
take the whole damn country down with your selfishness.
No comments:
Post a Comment