Social Security
Communism in the old Soviet Union lasted 70 years, 1917 to 1987. Social Security in the USA lasted 70 years, 1935 to 2005, That is to say SS was dead in 2005 but somehow, like El Cid, continues to live.
Let there be a program set in motion to phase out SS completely over the next 70 years. The cut-off age should be 21. The young workers pay nothing in and no benefits accrue.
This letter has not been edited.
Jim:
SS was designed to give something for people to retire on. If saving money on your own to retire on 90 percent if not more would not have a dime. Then these people would be sponging on the tax dollars to live. So the intent of the program is good. Problem is our government has commited fraud and stole it from us.
Jim,
You might want to ask your parents or grandparents how they feel about this abominable communist scheme that you've uncovered.
Jim,
What flavor of Jim Jones' KoolAid you drinking today?
I like lime.
Posted by Yo Mamma on May 30, 2007 03:27 PMJim Thrailkill,
When you go back to traveling by horse and buggy, we'll give up Social Security.
Friggin' Clown.
Posted by Charles B on May 30, 2007 03:33 PMJim Thrailkill.....Your so stupid you think harass is two words!
Posted by A on May 30, 2007 03:56 PMMy reading of the history of Social Security leads me to believe that it was created by President Roosevelt as part of his plan to help the country recovery from the Great Depression by encouraging older workers to retire (the Act set 65 as retirement age before then there was no set retirement age) so that unemployed younger men (the predominant work force of the time was male) could get work to support their families. This along with the various government run building programs went a long way to returning stability to the country. Social Security was meant to be a supplement to retirement, not a sole source of income. The enticement to retire was based upon a government supplement to what workers would normally have gotten from their employer.
The fact that it has morphed into its present form does not lesson the fact that its primary purpose was to supplement retired income and that is not a bad thing.
Posted by Frank on May 30, 2007 04:19 PMSocial Security is no longer. When did that happen? Why are my parents still getting their SS checks? Oh liberal media, you have once again failed to inform me.
Posted by Sean on May 30, 2007 04:36 PMFrank, I could be wrong but I suspect most employers didn't offer a retirement plan then. In fact, that was the depression, so many didn't even have jobs.
Posted by anderson on May 30, 2007 04:48 PMJim: "It is the USA version of communism.'
I don't know about El Cid, but it looks like Joe McCarthy is back.
Can anyone show me where in the Constitution it says the federal government can take money from some people and hand it over to others to pay for their retirement?
Social Security was one of many unconstitutional programs the communist Mr. Roosevelt put forth. The Supreme Court was shutting down his programs until he threatened to pack the courts.
I don't think it is appropriate to call Mr. Thrailkill a "friggin' moron" or "stupid" just because he opposes a massive, unconstitutional, failing federal government program. Actually, some might look at the inane comments from some of the foolish sciolists on this thread and apply those same derogative terms to them.
anderson wins the "friggin' moron" award for this comment:
"Frank, I could be wrong but I suspect most employers didn't offer a retirement plan then. In fact, that was the depression, so many didn't even have jobs."
Charles B., wins the "stupid" award for this comment:
"When you go back to traveling by horse and buggy, we'll give up Social Security."
Posted by John II on May 30, 2007 05:16 PM
The troll is back.
Disingenuous John tells us FDR threatened to pack the Courts, but then doesn' t mention that he failed to do so, and suffered politically for it. He also calls him a communist, when obviously he wasn't. He also insinuates the Supreme Court was subject to political pressures, when they've fought that kind of thing throughout history, in that scheme we call checks and balances.
Can anyone show me in the Constitution where it says corporations are persons?
I didn't think so.
Posted by anderson on May 30, 2007 05:32 PMLooks like John II is a Constitutional purist. Why don't you pick up the fight of disbanding the US Air Force, because according to the Constitution, Congress is only allowed to raise funds for the Army, Navy, and Marines. Please write to the editor and you elected officials for this blatent disregard of the Constitution.
Posted by Sean on May 30, 2007 05:54 PMDemocrats should backed Bush on investing part of the SS in the private sector. Wall street’s return on investment is a lot higher than any government program, short term or long. Anyone with a brain puts they money in 401K or similar programs, and not relying on SS alone. SS is another failed socialist program designed to redistribute wealth.
Posted by Uno on May 30, 2007 05:57 PMJohn II,
"don't think it is appropriate to call Mr. Thrailkill a "friggin' moron""
Sure it is. Just like calling you a self-interested, disingenuous, tin-horn is appropriate.
Posted by Charles B on May 30, 2007 06:12 PMReally SS is a failed socialist program to redistribute wealth? If the purpose is to redistribute wealth, than it has failed, but it is not. However, if the purpose is to act as a safety-net for the old and those unable to work, than it is a success. Think of it this way. SS has survived over 70 years of Republican attempts to destroy it and it is still around. Does that speak of Republican incompetence (very plausible) or does it speak of the strength of SS?
Posted by Sean on May 30, 2007 06:14 PManderson,
"Disingenuous John tells us FDR threatened to pack the Courts, but then doesn' t mention that he failed to do so, and suffered politically for it."
I believe the fact the Mr. Roosevelt did not pack the courts is implicit in my statement that he threatened to pack the court. And he did not suffer politically for it. In fact, not only did the Supreme Court rule in his favor, he was elected for an unprecedented third term.
"He also calls him a communist, when obviously he wasn't."
Why do you say obviously? Have you studied his programs? How was the NRA not a communist program? Or what about the fact that he imprisoned Japanese-Americans simply because they were Japanese-Americans?
"He also insinuates the Supreme Court was subject to political pressures, when they've fought that kind of thing throughout history, in that scheme we call checks and balances."
I suggest you read the history of the 1930's. The Supreme Court was indeed pressured by Mr. Roosevelt. This is a fact.
Posted by John II on May 30, 2007 06:27 PMAh yes, the NIRA that "authorized the President to regulate businesses in the interests of promoting fair competition, supporting prices and competition, creating jobs for unemployed workers, and stimulating the United States economy to recover from the Great Depression". How evil of him to stimulate the economy like that. And how did the American people show their anger to the New Deal and his leadership during WWII? I tell you how, by re-electing him four times. Take that commie!
Posted by Sean on May 30, 2007 07:12 PMThats the one, Sean. The NRA told businesses what they could charge for it's products and how much to pay it's employees. It was unanimously voted unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That decision was later overruled after FDR's threats to pack the court.
Explain to me how the NRA was not a communist endeavor?
Posted by John II on May 30, 2007 07:32 PMFDR was not a commun8ist. Social Security was a program intended to supplement individual savings for retirement. What he and the others founding it did not anticipate was the gradual total dependence on the program for retirement. Perhaps they also forgot about the addition of benefits to spouses and children and of course SSI. We need to re-evaluate the program and allow those who wish to opt out to direct the investment of their contributions as they wish. Perhaps we could allow anyone who did this to assign his benefits to heirs. They would also have to forgo other government benefits which would most likely not be necessary if they weren't allowed to access the funds before retirement.
My husband can't afford to retire because his benefit, after working since the age of 14, will be less than our current bills. I'm not blaming anyone else. He could have chosen other jobs or a different career path and we will make it but Social Security needs to be reformed because when the burden is on two people for one retiree then the program will be changed or abandoned because the politicians will do what is necessary to be re-elected without regard for anything else. Just like they do today.
Communism seeks to create a classless society where the means of production are controlled by the state. That is not in the text of the NRA, Ford Co. never became a state run enterprise nor did GE. Yes FDR did some terrible things, but he also did some excellent things like social security, which still has not been declared unconstitutional, and don't think some Republican organization has tried.
Posted by Sean on May 30, 2007 07:41 PMIt is the Dems main goal to redistribute wealth, regardless of what its called. To take from the productive and give it to the non-productive in exchange for votes is the bottom line for Democrats. The end result is a lifetime supply of generations of unemployable welfare recipients, and whole bunch of other problems. Some people always screaming and bitching for government handout. That SS is paid to people who never paid into it is proof of that.
Posted by Uno on May 30, 2007 07:49 PMSean
You said:
"Communism seeks to create a classless society where the means of production are controlled by the state. That is not in the text of the NRA, Ford Co. never became a state run enterprise nor did GE."
Did the NRA tell businesses what they could charge for their products and how long their workers could work and what they must pay their employees? That sounds like a planned economy to me.
Whether or not you like social security and whether or not it has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court does not mean it is not unconstitutional. FDR's greatest achievement was to push the envelope of government control so far to the left that it now seems normal for Congress to completely ignore any of the constitutional limits on taxation.
Posted by John II on May 30, 2007 08:05 PMUno, you sound like a talk radio clone, with a single minded view (hence, your name I suppose)--unable to think for yourself or beyond "us v. them". Just how does it feel to have half the world against you?
And explain how it is that Soc Sec is paid to people who never paid into it? The only ones I know who like this are the disabled. Of course, we could kick them to the curb too since you've already booted everyone else.
Posted by anderson on May 30, 2007 08:06 PMAnd the main goal of the Republican party is to dumb down the populace to the point where the solution to this country's problems come in thirty second sounbites and to create a country where communism is still ta threat. But is that not the goal of conservatism, to live in the past?
Posted by Sean on May 30, 2007 08:25 PMIt's sad to think that people like John II (I suppose there may be other people who share his view, although I have never run across any) have to live in a country which has laws probably 99% of which John II thinks are unconstitutional. It's no wonder that he sees revolution as the only way out. But it's difficult to imagine a revolution by only one person succeeding. Or by two people since it's possible that Keith would join him. Actually, he doesn't have to live here, but then there is no where else for him to go. So instead he continues to live here and bitch, bitch, bitch.
Posted by Truth on May 30, 2007 08:33 PMThanks for your sympathy, Truth. But, I'm not sure how sympathy for John II proves the constitutionality of many our federal programs. You may like the programs. You may even really really like them. But, that doesn't mean our Constitution empowers the federal government to proceed with those programs.
The authors of the Constitution purposely limited the powers of the federal government because they knew there was a dangerous tendency for government to centralize it's powers over time.
"So instead he continues to live here and bitch, bitch, bitch."
That's an odd statement to make from the guy who lauded Thomas Jefferson's non-quote: "Democracy demands dissent."
I'm arguing in favor of the Constitution. What are you arguing in favor of?
Posted by John II on May 30, 2007 09:03 PMWhere in the Constitution does it say that parents can take MY money and spend it on your childrens schooling.
Give MY redisributed money to the Mexicans. At least they work for a living.
All those religious peoploe in the South on welfare? Those gezus people are very independent. Thats why they're Republic ans. Because they don't want "their" money going to other people.
Posted by Right Wing Nut on May 30, 2007 10:46 PMJohn II: "I'm arguing in favor of the Constitution. What are you arguing in favor of?"
John II, for God's sake, realize that what you are arguing is in favor of YOUR VERSION of the constitution, a version that has never taken hold in America's two hundred and thirty year existence. I'm reminded of the many versions of the bible that exist, with each one arguing that his is the one true version. People have, and will always have, different views of what the constitution means. In my opinion, it is arrogant and intellectually dishonest to pretend no version other than your own exists.
I'm not aware of anyone, anywhere, who supports your view, except you. Are you?
You complain of my comment that you continue to "bitch, bitch, bitch" with this comment:
"That's an odd statement to make from the guy who lauded Thomas Jefferson's non-quote: "Democracy demands dissent."
While I don't recall referring to Jefferson's quote, nonetheless I endorse it heartily. I think you have a constitutional right to continually bitch, bitch, bitch, just as I have the right to comment on it.
Posted by Truth on May 31, 2007 07:04 AM"Jim Thrailkill.....Your so stupid you think harass is two words!"- A
It's 'you're'; not 'your'.- As in 'you are'. If YOU'RE going to call someone stupid, at least do it correctly.
"Really SS is a failed socialist program to redistribute wealth? If the purpose is to redistribute wealth, than it has failed, but it is not. However, if the purpose is to act as a safety-net for the old and those unable to work, than it is a success. Think of it this way. SS has survived over 70 years of Republican attempts to destroy it and it is still around. Does that speak of Republican incompetence (very plausible) or does it speak of the strength of SS?"- Sean
First of all, the word is 'then'; not 'than'.
The "strength of SS"? In 1950, there were 16 workers for every 1 person on SS. In 2005, it was 3.3. It's projected to be 2:1 in 2040.
That's strength?
Posted by Mike on May 31, 2007 07:12 AMTruth,
You said:
"I'm reminded of the many versions of the bible that exist, with each one arguing that his is the one true version. People have, and will always have, different views of what the constitution means. In my opinion, it is arrogant and intellectually dishonest to pretend no version other than your own exists."
The Constitution is not like the Bible. The Bible is made up of parables and lessons on how to live one's life. It is open to interpretation. The Constitution is a set of laws and rules that, for the most part, are fairly easy to understand. What version are you arguing in favor of? Your chimerical version of the Constitution simply serves to justify your grandiose plans for all-encompassing, unlimited, over-bearing central government and the complete abandonment of state's rights.
"I'm not aware of anyone, anywhere, who supports your view, except you. Are you?"
What bubble do you live in? You're not aware of anyone else who believes in states rights and the Constitution's limits on federal taxation? Try checking out Cato.org or the Heritage Foundation.
Posted by John II on May 31, 2007 08:32 AMAs some of have alluded to before, Cato and Heritage are merely arguing for their version of what the constitution means. Their claim is largely rhetorical. Strict construction is a legitimate way (but not the only way) to approach the constitution. But even if you do down this path, there are a multitude of problems: who were the founding fathers? How do we know what they meant? Unless, of course, you have a fundamentalist mind-set, in which case it becomes easy: you just look to an "authority" a minister,, a talk radio host, or Heritage foundation. Then YOUR version becomes THE version.
I want to know when Cato is going to advocate abolishment of corporate personhood since that isn't in the Constitution.
Posted by anderosn on May 31, 2007 09:43 AMJohn II to me: "What bubble do you live in? You're not aware of anyone else who believes in states rights and the Constitution's limits on federal taxation? Try checking out Cato.org or the Heritage Foundation."
The bubble I live in, John II, is the real world. How about yourself? You seem to live in a bubble which has never existed. I can understand you're trying to associate yourself with the Cato and Heritage Foundations to give you at least semblance of credibility, but you surely know that neither the Cato or Heritage Foundations have the same position as you do on the various federal programs which you think are unconstitutional. You seem willing to say whatever it takes to support your position, regardless of the truth or validity of your statements.
The Cato and Heritage people indeed want to reduce the size of government, but they also recognize that the federal government has a role to play in the many areas covered by federal programs which you consider unconstitutional. They recognize that the areas are best served by federal rather than state regulation. It is you, rather than me, who needs to become aware of what Cato and Heritage are about; they don't come any where close to the position you take on what is unconstitutional. While they may think that these various programs should be reduced, modified or amended, neither believe that all of these programs are unconstitutional as you do:
1. Food and drug laws which seek to protect the food we eat and the medicines we take.
2. Child labor laws which protect children from child from being exploited as they were in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
3. Environamental laws which seek to prevent industry from polluting our environment and putting our population at risk.
4. Security laws which seek to protect the public from unscrupulous dealers in securities.
5. Deceptive advertising laws which seek to protect the public from false and misleading advertisements.
6. Consumer protection laws which, among other things, seek to protect the public from buying dangerous products.
7. Business protection laws which seek to protect the United States from episodes such as Enron.
8. Industrial safety laws which seek to protect workers from unreasonably unsafe working conditions.
9. Internal security laws which seek to protect the United States from terrorist attack.
To name a few.
Truth and anderson,
Which areas do you think should be left to the states and what are your thoughts on the 10th amendment which says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
How do you interpret that?
Posted by John II on May 31, 2007 10:11 AMMike, I know YER nobody's fool, but maybe someone will adopt you.
Posted by A on May 31, 2007 10:47 AMJohn II: "Social Security was one of many unconstitutional programs the communist Mr. Roosevelt put forth. The Supreme Court was shutting down his programs until he threatened to pack the courts."
Fact: the Social Security Act was enacted in 1935.
After having several New Deal measures shot down by the Supreme Court (The SSA apparently not one of them) FDR revealed his plan to pack the Courts in Feb, 1937, to Dem. party leaders (it had been a secret until then). His own party failed to support him and the proposal never got out of the Senate. Source: Robert Caro, "Master of the Senate" pp. 57-63.
Posted by anderson on May 31, 2007 11:00 AManderson,
Fact: Helvering v. Davis was ruled on in 1937.
It was widely known that FDR wanted to pack the courts if he didn't get his way. The courts nonsensical ruling was widely criticized and attributed to FDR's threat.
Posted by John II on May 31, 2007 11:24 AMFor anyone interested in the history of this matter:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
Posted by anderson on May 31, 2007 11:40 AManderson and Truth,
Are you going to answer my question from 10:11am today?
Posted by John II on May 31, 2007 01:06 PMInteresting link. I'm surprised the government is so candid about how Social Security came to be. It acknowledged that SS was only ruled constitutional because of FDR's court-packing threat, just as I claimed in my first post on this thread.
"In early 1937 President Roosevelt made what turned out to be the biggest political blunder[threatened to pack the courts] of his career, and yet it was a blunder that would have fortuitous, even pivotal, importance for the fate of Social Security."
...
"In the spring of 1935 Justice Roberts joined with the conservatives to invalidate the Railroad Retirement Act. In May, the Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act. In January 1936 a passionately split Court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Act unconstitutional. In another case from 1936 the Court ruled New York state's minimum wage law unconstitutional. The upshot was that major social and political reforms, including social insurance programs, appeared headed for defeat."
...
"President Roosevelt's response to all of this was stunning and unexpected. On February 5, 1937 he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire."
...
"The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts) thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor. The debate on this proposal was heated, widespread and over in six months. The President would be decisively rebuffed, his reputation in history tarnished for all time. But the Court, it seemed, got the message and suddenly shifted its course. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April and May 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases) the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation, producing a "constitutional revolution in the age of Roosevelt."
...
"This sudden switch by Justice Roberts was forever after referred to as "the switch in time that saved nine."
Thanks for that link, anderson.
Posted by John II on May 31, 2007 01:46 PMJohn II: "Which areas do you think should be left to the states and what are your thoughts on the 10th amendment which says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
How do you interpret that?"
Don't be an idiot, John II. This is not "dissertations on demand". Next you'll be asking us to write a dissertation on American history. People write volumes on what you ask for, and take years to do the research and writing. I generally charge $200 an hour to do this sort of thing. You'll have to put a a retainer of two thousand dollars just in case you get cold feet on the deal.
The various programs I listed have been around for many years and many have often been tested in the courts. If you think the long-standing status quo should be changed, it's up to you to say why and to spell out what, if any, of the programs I listed you think are unconstitutional and why.
The only argument that I can recall you offering for your view is that you want to limit the phrase "provide for the general welfare" in a way that it has never been limited, and I presume you want to do the same with the commerce clause. The term "general welfare" is a vague term and as is the nature of vague terms it is subject to various interpretations. Our Supreme Court has rejected your very narrow interpretation of that phrase. There again, the power of the Supreme Court is given in vague language, it is given "the judicial power". Again, a phrase subject to various interpretations. And again, it has been accepted since early on that that court has the power to intrepret the constitution.
I am amazed that you have the gall and audacity to call on Anderson and I to provide you with a dissertation on such a complicated subject. To me, you did this to try to escape responsibility for supporting your extremely isolated views, views which no one else supports, including Cato and Heritage.
No.
Judge Cardozo answered your specific question in Helvering v. Davis, which is linked on this thread. His argument is good for me. 70 years later it still remains law.
Of course the Constitution belongs to you as it does the rest of us, John. So, grouse all you want about what you think it means.
Posted by anderson on May 31, 2007 01:54 PMTruth,
You have no problem writing an entire page on all the federal programs you support but suddenly you don't have the time to tell me which programs should be left to the states? I didn't ask for a "dissertation". What a cowardly way to avoid answering a question. That was pathetic.
anderson,
What do you mean by saying "No"? I quoted from the link you provided. You pointed everyone to that website for "anyone interested in the history of this matter". I simply posted an excerpt from that site. Are you now saying that the link you provided is inaccurate?
You guys are a couple of clowns.
Posted by John II on May 31, 2007 02:13 PMIt seems like a stretch to say that the opinion of "the Court" changed as a result of FDR's court-packing plan--when it was actually just one judge (Roberts). Also, they heard arguments (fall of '36) before the FDR's plan was known, although the decisions came down after. And it's not clear how such a plan would influence the Court (or specifically Judge Roberts) to change his mind. But, I'm not a historian or particularly versed in that era to speak with authoity. I bet John II knows though. Maybe Roberts later wrote a book in which he confessed that that bastard communist of a President made him do it.
Whatever one's opinion of the influences of the time, the fact remains the Court has *not* overruled the opinion upholding the constitutionality of the SSA and FDR died a long time ago.
Posted by anderson on May 31, 2007 02:20 PMAgain, anderson, I quoted directly from the website you advised everyone to read. In fact, the website you provided is owned by the SSA!
The Court was shooting down FDR's programs until the threat. Then, miraculously, the court reversed it's position because one judge changed his mind.
The fact that Social Security has not since been ruled unconstitutional is because the program is so large and has so many dependents that it would be much too dramatic to overturn it now. We can't even change SS let alone abolish it. That's what happens when citizens become dependent on a cradle-to-grave government welfare state.
Posted by John II on May 31, 2007 02:40 PMOh, John boy. You want me to give you my thoughts on the tenth amendment and you don't think that is a dissertation? What a laugh!! You think a person can take five or ten minutes and tell you his thoughts on the tenth amendment? No, John, I am not afflicted with the same penchant for superficiality and unreliability that afflicts you.
I've already made clear that I am satisfied to have the federal government run the programs I have listed and which it has run for years,just as you have made clear that you consider them to be unconstitutional. That doesn't satisfy you? You want me as well to speak to the thousands of other programs run by federal and state governments? Such arrogance and lack of common sense.
Of course, it takes only a few minutes to ask such asinine questions which impose a considerable burden on the answers, and you seem to favor posts which take you only a few minutes. If you have something of substance to say, quit horsing around and take the time to say it intelligently.
Posted by Truth on May 31, 2007 06:42 PMTruth,
You know as well as I do that it does not take a dissertation to state your opinion of the 10th amendment. I think even anderson knows that.
I think you should have followed anderson's example and just avoid the question rather than give some lame excuse as to why you can't answer it.
The real reason you refuse to answer it is because the 10th amendment is very clear and you hate the idea of acknowledging state's rights.
But, I'll play along with your game. Scratch the question about the 10th amendment. How about just telling me what programs you feel should be handled by the states instead of the federal government. You can limit your answer to the same amount of space you dedicated to listing your favorite federal programs.
One more thing to Truth, anderson, Charles B., and sean:
It's ok to acknowledge you were wrong in a debate. I've done it. Debate doesn't have to be this acrimonious. You don't have to keep fighting a losing battle because of your pride. And, if you call someone's comments "disingenuous" and later you are proven wrong, the manly thing to do would be to rescind your false accusation.
Posted by John II on May 31, 2007 07:58 PMJohn II,
"It's ok to acknowledge you were wrong in a debate. I've done it. Debate doesn't have to be this acrimonious. You don't have to keep fighting a losing battle because of your pride." "...the manly thing to do would be to rescind your false accusation."
I'd be happy to rescind any false accusation I've leveled. Could you refresh my memory?
Regarding your lecture on pride and such:
I'm married with children John II, and happily so. That's a trick that can't be achieved without heaps of humility.
Perhaps you should sip a bit of your own remedy.
Posted by Charles B on May 31, 2007 10:09 PMJohn II: "How about just telling me what programs you feel should be handled by the states instead of the federal government. "
John II, you are one ridiculous person. I'll let you know when I sign up for one of your courses. Meantime, if you have something to say, say it in the form of a statement rather than a question. For example, how about you answering your own questions about naming all of the government programs which you think should be run by the federal government and all which you think should be run by the state. You might even go so far as to answer your question about the tenth amendment. It takes little or not thought to ask questions and perhaps that is why you are so enamored with going that route rather than saying what you think.
Or perhaps you think it is too burdensome for you to answer questions which you ask of others.
You fail to note that I have told you that I think the government programs I listed should be run by the state. You think all of them are unconstitutional. That should provide you with enough information for you to start making statements rather than asking questions, as much fun as that may be for you.
As for what I think about the tenth amendment, I think it is real nice. If you want to pose a specific question about it, that may be something I'll take the time to deal with. But only after you have stated what your answer to the question is. This business of asking questions which you yourself haven't answered is childish.
Posted by Truth on June 1, 2007 07:18 AMTruth,
John II has already written his position on anything, and anyone, disagreeing with his position. Go back into the May Archives, and you will find his statement that several of us have produced, in his word, "treason".
Why do you continue to waste time on him?
Posted by Old Grouch on June 1, 2007 07:54 AMTruth,
"Meantime, if you have something to say, say it in the form of a statement rather than a question. "
You crack me up. I have never seen anyone fumble like this before. Most people just leave the thread or ignore a question (Old Grouch) they don't like. But, your posts have got to be the funniest thing I have ever read on this forum. You can't name one program that should be left to the states rather than the federal government.
Old Grouch is right when he said: "John II has already written his position on anything, and anyone, disagreeing with his position."
You already know where I stand because I'm not afraid to say what I think about anything.
Why not just come out of the closet and admit that you're not a fan of our Constitution and that you prefer the federal government to run things, not the states.
It's a lot easier to give your famous "John II thinks..." speeches isn't it?
Posted by John II on June 1, 2007 08:39 AMTruth, based on John's authoritive and sincere assertion, I expect you'll be putting "Not a fan of our Constitution" on your business cards from now on.
Posted by anderson on June 1, 2007 10:26 AMJohn II,
You're a cartoon.
Posted by Charles B on June 1, 2007 01:13 PMVery good, Charles B.
You managed to call me self-interested, disingenuous, a tin-horn and now a cartoon. You also called the author of the letter a "friggin' moron".
You certainly made a cogent case for the constitutionality of Social Security. Brilliant!
Posted by John II on June 1, 2007 01:43 PMNo, John. I called you disingenous.
As for the letter writer, he calls Social Security the worst government program ever, and equates it to communism, but makes no argument for either of these assertions. I guess maybe the C label was meant to be the argument as it is a great traditional smear. I won't go so far as to call him moronic, but it sure isn't very persuasive.
Posted by anderson on June 1, 2007 01:56 PManderson,
Both you and Charles B. called me disingenuous (among other pejoratives). As for the letter writer, I think his letter could have been written better. But, I think I argued his points persuasively enough on his behalf.
John II,
As you well know, and should be obvious to anyone who is capable of reading and comprehending plain English: SOCIAL SECURITY IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
The case was decided in HELVERING vs DAVIS. And the wording is clear, cogent, and final.
Despite your fatuous blathering, and silly posturing, the Constitution we have IS OUR CONSTITUTION. Your assinine position that it shouldn't be considered so, is beyond any need for further consideration. And your monumental arrogance in acting as if you were, somehow, the final arbiter of Constitutionality is beyond being even a cartoon.
Of course, you are not the only "States Rights" proponent in the country. However, your being proponent of that theory DOES NOT make that theory the sole and only Constitutional position allowable. But, apparently from your other maunderings and flapdoodle, you feel it does give you the right to crawl down to the level of argument that asserts the idea of, "Dissent equals treason". And this is just another example of your own duplicitous behavior, especially when you so shrilly hold to your own right to dissent from the position of others.
Yes, I ignore further questions from you. Anyone who has had to put up with your constant disingenuous and pusillanimous misrepresentations of the answers already given you should also have come to that point as well by now.
You call the words of Helvering vs. Davis "nonsensical". Well and good. That's YOUR "clear statement". I call YOUR statement just plain stupidity. And if that be "treason", John II, make ye the most of it.
Old Grouch,
I've tried to get an understanding of your (Truth, Charles B., anderson, yourself) version of the Constitution. No one wants to answer my questions. They just want to offer insults and tell me I'm "disingenuous".
I asked Truth and anderson what they think of the 10th amendment and he refused to answer. I asked them what programs should be left to the states instead of the federal government and they refused to answer.
The website that anderson offered to explain Social Security, is owned by the Social Security Administration. And on SSA's own website, they admitted that Social Security was approved by the Supreme Court because of FDR's court-packing threat. Did you read it? The SSA freely admits it. This is not just John II's version.
Posted by John II on June 1, 2007 03:02 PMJohn II,
You want radical change to the system currently in place. I do not. Is that simple enough for you?
You can argue your points about the Constitution till you're blue in the face. The simple fact is that most people disagree with your radical position and that means your side loses. I'm glad for that. To the victor go the spoils right? I can't wait to divvy up your hard-won earnings and help old-people survive with some dignity.
I stand by everything I said about you. You haven't denied it I noticed. "Tin Horn" is the most appropriate I think. Feel free to protest if you disagree. That's fine. It's just my opinion.
Posted by Charles B on June 1, 2007 06:35 PMI continue to wonder why you are afraid to answer your own questions. It takes a good deal of gall to ask other people to answer questions which you yourself are afraid to answer. Apparently, you prefer to just continue to bitch and moan.
If you have something to say about the tenth amendment, you should just say it instead of asking others what they think about it. But perhaps that requires more thinking than you are capable of. You continually avoid taking a position on matters. Why is that?
I think the tenth amendment is a good amendment. So what the hell is your point? Or do you have one? God, I have never run into anyone so incapable of saying what he thinks.
Posted by Truth on June 1, 2007 08:17 PMJohn II, do you have a point to make about the tenth amendment or are you just trolling?
Posted by on June 1, 2007 08:20 PMI am be wrong, John II, but I think maybe your problem is that you don't understand the words dialog and discussion. So let me try to help you.
You generally don't start out a discussion with a question, unless you simply have nothing to say yourself. Rather, you make a statement and then invite others to comment on it.
So make a damned statement about the tenth amendment if you want to discuss it. Or maybe you simply don't have anything to say about the tenth amendment. That's what it sounds like.
If you need more help, just ask for it.
Posted by Truth on June 1, 2007 08:25 PMCharles B.,
"You can argue your points about the Constitution till you're blue in the face. The simple fact is that most people disagree with your radical position and that means your side loses."
My side is the Constitution. You may really, really love your federal programs but you have still not proven their constitutionality. Frankly, I think you should be embarrassed at your performance on this thread. You're actually trying to argue the constitutionality of your favorite federal programs by saying John II is a tin-horn. Would you argue ad hominem in a court of law?
Truth,
You said:
"You continually avoid taking a position on matters. Why is that?"
I don't understand how you can say that. When do I ever hold back my opinions on anything? Old Grouch tells me everyday that I need to keep my opinions to myself.
Are you saying that you don't know my position on the 10th amendment? The 10th amendment states:
""The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.""
Now, I interpret that as meaning: The powers not enumerated by the Constitution are left to the States to decide.
Charles B. may call that radical so I guess I'm old-fashioned that way.
But, of course, that is just my "version" of the Constitution. Now, let's hear yours and Charles B. If you guys think the 10th amendment is a "good amendment", perhaps you can tell me which of your favorite federal programs is listed in the Constitution and which programs you'd rather see the States handle.
This is the fourth or fifth time I've posed this question. The reason you won't answer is because you want all programs to be run by the federal government regardless of whether or not they are allowed by the Constitution.
So, you can retort, yet again, with "John II thinks..." or "John II believes..." or "John II is a tin-horn" or "John II is disingenuous", but none of that proves your case and all of it proves your intellectual impotence.
Can I jump in here guys? Sorry to start with a question, but can anyone think of a program that has been better run at the state level then at the federal level?
Looks like we Federalists had better clean our muskets because the States rights boys are spoiling for a fight again.
Posted by Sharon B. on June 2, 2007 04:09 AMJohn II,
"My side is the Constitution."
This statement says it all...Tin Horn.
Posted by Charles B on June 2, 2007 08:15 AMJohn II,
When it comes to "intellectual impotence", YOU certainly are not the one to be criticizing others. But, as with your references to "treason" when you encounter dissent, that's par for the course.
Your own "reality quotient" is very sadly lacking. Social Security - and many other Federal programs - may (or may not) have come into being by way of Supreme Court decisions you don't like, or that you oppose and consider "nonsensical". That's moot. They are there. And challenges to their Constitutionality by way of the 10th Amendment did not - and do not - prevail.
The Constitution continues to be a living document. YOU many not like that fact, or oppose it and consider the idea "nonsensical". Again, that's moot. The system of checks and balances is there, with 3 distinct parts, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. YOU may not like it, oppose it, and consider the reality "nonsensical"; again, that's moot.
In the specific case of Social Security - which, if memory serves, was/is, the topic of the original letter - the matter of the 10th Amendment, and "States Rights" as they were under consideration, was very adequately dealt with in a concise, succinct, and well written opinion, as rendered in the Supreme Court decision so many times cited on this topic already. YOU may not like this, oppose this, and consider this to be "nonsensical" - as well as keep on offering repeated irrelevant and immaterial "reasons" for the decision - but, again that's moot.
It is not necessary for others to have to repeat, or take up the space to rewrite, the opinion, as your rather infantile whining about not receiving an answer to your question concerning what others think about the 10th Amendment would have us believe. The demonstrated "intellectual impotence" there is, simply, YOUR inability to understand and comprehend what the opinion says, as well as YOUR constant insistence upon YOUR position as being, somehow, of major continuing importance.
Posted by Old Grouch on June 2, 2007 08:40 AM"The Constitution continues to be a living document."
What does that mean? What is a "living document"?
Posted by John II on June 2, 2007 09:17 AMJohn- It means that the original words don't mean anything to him. It can be interpreted and changed to suit him.
Such as the 2nd Amendment. We have seen the absurd argument that it only applies to state militias; and not individuals.
Or, that "promoting the general welfare" is an explicit promotion of a socialist state.
You can't get enough support to amend the Constitution? Appoint some judges who will interpret it the way you want.
Living? I would say it is dying.
Posted by Mike on June 2, 2007 11:10 AMOne of my professors liked to occasionally use the term "the giants of jurisprudence" when he wanted us to recognize a great man in law. I specifically remember him referring to Cardozo in this manner.
Of course that's not to say Cardozo or anyone else had "the" right answer on any given question, but, at the least, anything he's written deserves some respect (I'm invoking a conservative idea here).
Posted by anderson on June 2, 2007 11:27 AMMike,
"Dying", for something over 200 years now? Best track record for a "dying" set of principles I've seen in a good long time, myself. But, then, I just happen to deal with the reality we have, and the history that is there.
If either you or John II has ever had a course in Constitutional Law, it surely must have been one you either ditched regularly, slept through on such days as you may have been forced to show up, or just outright flunked.
You obviously have no idea whatsoever of how the Court system works, nor of what the process might be to arrive at a point of Constitutional intrepretation. And, quite obviously, you know little, or nothing, about the process of Amendment as well.
The fact that there are arguments concerning the interpretation of Amendments, and of parts of the Constitution itself is the fundamental sign of LIFE in its current state. YOU, or John II, may not like a particular argument, or position, or even decision. But, until you display a better understanding of how a decision is arrived at, you are doing nothing more than expressing an opinion from your own ignorance.
You are, of course, entitled to such expression; here on this forum as much as any place else. Indeed both you and John II express your opinions quite regularly, and at great length. However, when there are opportunities to learn something about why others do not happen to share that opinion, both of you decline to take advantage of them, insisting that YOUR view is the only one allowable; and that everyone else must needs defer to you.
You don't want discussion of complexities; and you prefer simplistic labels to any attempt at understanding complex ideas. For myself, I simply decline to waste further time on attempts to deal with fixations on buzz words - such as "socialist", for instance - when these buzz words are thrown around with absolutely no understanding whatsoever of their meaning.
Or, as I have remarked before, those who don't want to learn, won't.
Posted by Old Grouch on June 2, 2007 01:41 PMOld Grouch- Yet another LENGTHY post that says nothing.
I imagine you sitting around with your friends and colleagues, pontificating on life's "complexities", wasting away the hours; and reaching no conclusions, deciding nothing, and producing nothing.
Just blowing hot air. (without "labels" and "buzz words", of course)
Posted by Mike on June 2, 2007 02:14 PMMike, if slinging the word socialist around constitutes rewarding hours, (pun intended) then I guess you have done something Huh?
Posted by Sharon B. on June 2, 2007 05:59 PMAfter recently retiring from the most socialist society in the history of the world - the US military, I am thoroughly convinced that socialism is the best form of government.
Think of it - For 22-years the Air Force provided me food; living quarters; told me how much I will earn with predicatable wages and how far I would advance if I towed the party line; told me what to wear to the point of providing me clothes; top-notch health and dental care; retirement benefits; guaranteed employment; and base exchanges, commissaries and bowling alleys. Everywhere I turned during those 22-years I had pictures of the power elite (chain of command) staring at me ala Big Brothers and the USAF indoctrinated me so thoroughly in right-wing nationalistic fanaticism that I learned to stop automatically twice a day to render patronage to the holy flag. I ask you, how could I avoid being brainwashed in the ways of national socialism when I was force-fed USAF nationalistic propaganda at every turn in the form of taxpayer funded periodicals and myriad posters of jets, bombers and thermononuclear tipped missiles.
See folks, socialism isn't so bad. God bless America, the Cincinnati Reds (legs) and Paris Hilton.
Posted by Better read than dead - thanks USAF! on June 2, 2007 06:53 PMOur system of checks and balances in government relies on an independent judiciary. That's what the Gonzales firings are all about (the threat to such independence), even if some of our media outlets don't make this idea clear (a liberal v. conservative fight sells better).
You see where John Andrews (and presumably Mike) is coming from: if we don't like the decisions of the judges we have, we'll replace them by any means available (including public pressure "campaigns") until we get a right-minded set of judges (or until the current ones toe the line). Also insidiously introduced by such campaigns is the idea that our judiciary in general (and by extent the law itself) is not to be trusted (see Mike above; see Terri Schiavo case). Bye bye independence.
JIM...
Don't worry about Social Security..or Medicare or Medicaide..... it's going under ,
thanks to SOCIALIST that want the illegals here. Every social program is getting drained. So..when it's time to get yours..THERE WONT BE ANY!
"You see where John Andrews (and presumably Mike) is coming from: if we don't like the decisions of the judges we have, we'll replace them by any means available"
Anderson, you have no idea where I am coming from.
My problem is when judges have an ideology, and twist the Constitution to meet their ideology (the "living document" point of view); instead of applying the law as it stands.
The discussion earlier was about FDR packing the courts. Why would he want to do that if judges are always to be trusted and would never let their own ideologies affect their decisions?
Posted by Mike on June 3, 2007 08:40 AMMike, I have your statements, and they tell me a lot.
Your comment that judges (unnamed--but we know the scoundrels are out there) have an ideology, "twist" the constitution, or don't apply the law as it stands, is not only a generalization but a gross misrepresentation of what judges do. No, they can't twist or ingore the law as your statement implies. I tell you, someone is selling you a bill of goods, in order to make you angry, and maybe buy some books.
Why did FDR attempt to pack the court? Because they weren't giving him what he wanted. Checks and balances in action. The Senate, even his own party, was repulsed by the idea and shot it down. More checks and balances.
Yes, judges can make mistakes. Yes, they can be influenced by religion, ideology, or whatever. That doesn't mean, however, that we have a whole cadre of judges out there subverting the purposes of the Constitution, unless of course, getting to what Old Grouch said earlier, you think you, or whatever faction you represent, are the sole arbiter of what the Constitution stands for.
Posted by anderson on June 3, 2007 10:29 AManderson,
You continue to contradict yourself. First you say:
"Your comment that judges (unnamed--but we know the scoundrels are out there) have an ideology, "twist" the constitution, or don't apply the law as it stands, is not only a generalization but a gross misrepresentation of what judges do."
Then you you freely admit that:
"Yes, judges can make mistakes. Yes, they can be influenced by religion, ideology, or whatever."
So, you've proved Mike's point that some judges "twist" the Constitution to match their own ideology.
Yes, FDR failed to pack the courts. But, his threat still influenced the court anyway. So, your "checks and balances" didn't quite work in this scenario. In fact, as the SSA freely admits on it's own website, SS owes it's very existence to the fallibility of some judge's impartiality.
You, Truth and Old Grouch continue to talk of "versions" of interpretations of the Constitution. But, you have yet to provide your own interpretation. For example, if the 10th amendment says anything not defined in the Constitution is left to the States, how do you interpret that differently than Mike or myself?
Posted by John II on June 3, 2007 10:50 AM"Why did FDR attempt to pack the court? Because they weren't giving him what he wanted."
Exactly.
"That doesn't mean, however, that we have a whole cadre of judges out there subverting the purposes of the Constitution"
No, but a couple on the Supreme Court will do the job; as you have already acknowledged that they have their own ideologies and can be influenced.
John, are you by chance J.M. Schnell?
Posted by anderson on June 3, 2007 11:00 AMCaution...Schnell changes his handle frequently; but no matter what name he uses he's still a fool.
Posted by truthy on June 3, 2007 11:10 AMNo.
Posted by John II on June 3, 2007 11:10 AM