Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[zz912]

I think that SS is a wonderful program. It kicks in automatically providing benefits to a widow and her family in a case where the widow has unexpectedly lost the breadwinning husband.

It takes in 12.4% of your pay for your entire working career, and at the end you are lucky if you live long enough to receive any benefits. At best, you receive a -1% rate of return on the money, at BEST.

And the amount paid to those who lose a breadwinner, as in your example above, is a pittance compared to what a regular insurance policy would be. You’re groveling for the crumbs the govt deems to throw at you after they have had their fill. For MUCH less money than they spend, you could insure people with $500k or more insurance for such instances.

SS is a horrifically awful program that steals vast amounts of wealth from people, especially from the poorest and minorities.

 

[Tomdstone]

SS is a horrifically awful program that steals vast amounts of wealth from people, especially from the poorest and minorities.

I don;t think so. I think it is a great program for retirees and widows and their families.

 

[bobcrawford]

So, if the government stopped Social Security tomorrow (through an act of Congress) would you be able to successfully sue to get benefits? The answer is no. You are no more entitled to Social Security benefits than TANF recipients are entitled to their benefits. Or food stamp recipients are entitled to their benefits. Your entitlement comes solely from the fact that Congress deems you qualified to receive benefits. Nothing else…

So, the question is, can Congress stopped all benefits tomorrow without legal repercussion? The answer is yes. And because the answer is yes, it is a welfare program like any other such as TANF or food stamps or whatever. If you owned the money you put into SS then if the program was eliminated, you could sue under the 5th amendment to constitution because the government cannot take your property without compensation. But social security is not your property, it is welfare, plain and simple.

Obamacare and medicare are government run health insurance programs.

There is the 5th amendment to the constitution that would keep the government from confiscating your property without compensation. You have no such rights with Medicare and Social Security because they are not property, they are welfare programs.

I understand the programs quite well my friend. It is you my friend who is the one who is mistaken. But I always relish the chance to teach people new things.

You sadly have a lack of understanding of government. You should know that you cannot bring a suit against the federal government UNLESS the federal government grants you the ability to do so.

You should also realize that the government ignores the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution on a regular basis. If you don’t believe it, then it is out of ignorance. For example, there are hundreds of cases where the government has ordered that development be stopped on personal property thereby confiscating its use and denying the owner the ability to profit from their own property. In that action no money is provided to the owner of the property by the government.

For example, if I buy a building lot for say $60,000 to construct a house, then have the government come along and say, no you cannot build there because it is now deemed a wetland, the property is now devalued because government has confiscated its use even though it is still titled to you. The property is now completely devalued and guess what? The government does not have to reimburse you for the loss of use directly caused by their confiscation of its use. Violates the Bill of Rights. As Obama states, he has a pen and a phone and the heck with the rule of law.

You are a fool to say Social Security is welfare. You sound like a Liberal Progressive who tries to twist around words to make something appear to be something it is not. I would suggest that if you have not read all of Orwell’s books to do so. It will give you a clearer vision on what you are trying to accomplish.

A person is entitled to whatever they paid and thus it is an entitlement. That which you do not pay for, but receive is welfare. It’s just that simple.

Medicare is an entitlement. Medicaid is welfare. Again, you pay for Medicare your entire working life, and you don’t pay a thing or even have to work to get Medicaid.

Obamacare was determined by the Supreme Court to be a tax, not an insurance program, hence why Congress was able to pass it as law. That’s from the Supreme Court and they are the final rule of law. The benefits that people receive from it is simply call welfare.

 

[zz912]

I don;t think so. I think it is a great program for retirees and widows and their families.

If a private pension or investment fund were run like Social Security, the entire executive team and board would be put in jail. It is criminal for anyone but the federal govt to abuse people and their retirement funds they way they do.

Taking money, forcibly, from people to put in “accounts” where the funds are immediately spent, and then give a -1% rate of return on that money, but ONLY if you live long enough to receive it is horrifically abusive and evil. It’s a Ponzi scheme in the trillions.

Before singing the praises of SS, why don’t you google up “Galveston County opts out of social security” and see what happened when one county opted out of SS and ran their plan like a true pension. Their retirees are receiving 3-5x what SS provides, and there are MUCH larger benefits for widows and families, and if someone dies before retirement, the balance in the account goes to their estate. It doesn’t disappear.

Congress closed the loophole immediately after Galveston County did this so that more people wouldn’t escape this evil program. Funny how that works, isn’t it. It’s such a great plan, they have to make it mandatory.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Social Security is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You sadly have a lack of understanding of government. You should know that you cannot bring a suit against the federal government UNLESS the federal government grants you the ability to do so.

Under the takings clause the federal government is sued quite frequently and that is the clause that we are talking about here. It is you, who sadly have the lack of understanding my good friend.

You should also realize that the government ignores the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution on a regular basis. If you don’t believe it, then it is out of ignorance. For example, there are hundreds of cases where the government has ordered that development be stopped on personal property thereby confiscating its use and denying the owner the ability to profit from their own property. In that action no money is provided to the owner of the property by the government.

What you are talking about is regulatory takings my friend. The government cannot, for example, build an interstate highway through your living room without paying compensation. So if there is a physical loss of property, which confiscating 401k funds would be, the government cannot do that. The government can eliminate social security benefits because you have no property rights in them. Your entitlement to social security benefits is no different than a TANF recipients entitlement to those benefits. Your entitlements come because the government says you are eligible, but no other reason.

For example, if I buy a building lot for say $60,000 to construct a house, then have the government come along and say, no you cannot build there because it is now deemed a wetland, the property is now devalued because government has confiscated its use even though it is still titled to you. The property is now completely devalued and guess what? The government does not have to reimburse you for the loss of use directly caused by their confiscation of its use. Violates the Bill of Rights. As Obama states, he has a pen and a phone and the heck with the rule of law.

Actually, my friend, Lucas v. Carolina Coastal Commission has held that the government cannot deprive you of all use of the land. It must allow some use of the land, but it does not have to be the most profitable use. Personally, I think that regulatory takings ought to be compensated for, but that is a different matter than the physical taking of your property.

You are a fool to say Social Security is welfare. You sound like a Liberal Progressive who tries to twist around words to make something appear to be something it is not. I would suggest that if you have not read all of Orwell’s books to do so. It will give you a clearer vision on what you are trying to accomplish.

I would be careful about calling people a fool my friend. I am just calling the program what it is, the fact that you don’t like it does not change its nature.

A person is entitled to whatever they paid and thus it is an entitlement. That which you do not pay for, but receive is welfare. It’s just that simple.

Actually, under Social Security and Medicare, a person is entitled to what the government says they are entitled to. No more and no less. The government can eliminate the program at anytime, they can modify it, just like they changed welfare years ago.

Medicare is an entitlement. Medicaid is welfare. Again, you pay for Medicare your entire working life, and you don’t pay a thing or even have to work to get Medicaid.

They are both welfare.

 

[ishii]

He’s an idiot and won’t make it far in the campaign. I’m still waiting for a viable conservative candidate.

So you don’t consider Scott Walker or Marco Rubio conservative enough? or are they not viable? If not, who would you consider the most conservative, viable candidate?

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

 

[ishii]

Simply calling SS and medicare “entitlements” is misleading. We all get the deductions noted on our paychecks - you can see it every two weeks. Its different from welfare, foodstamps, etc. Everyone has been receiving SS for decades, once they become eligible. I don’t assume I’m going to get welfare or foodstamps. I’m not going to retire and say, “now hand over the foodstamps and welfare” - those are entitlements.

All of this is just arguing over technicalities and semantics that only serves the purpose of winning gold medal debate awards. But in the end, it just adds to the confusion instead of clarifying anything.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

Simply calling SS and medicare “entitlements” is misleading. We all get the deductions noted on our paychecks - you can see it every two weeks. Its different from welfare, foodstamps, etc.

There is the perception that it is different. Legally, it is no different from TANF or food stamps. You notice that nobody ever disputes the legal angle, that legally it is no different from other welfare programs. I tell my students that FDR was brilliant to put in the payroll tax to pay for SS because it would create a sense of entitlement that is hard to get rid of. These forums are proof of that. Think of it, you have so called conservatives, defending a welfare program and trying their best to define it as not welfare.

Everyone has been receiving SS for decades, once they become eligible. I don’t assume I’m going to get welfare or foodstamps. I’m not going to retire and say, “now hand over the foodstamps and welfare” - those are entitlements.

All of this is just arguing over technicalities and semantics that only serves the purpose of winning gold medal debate awards. But in the end, it just adds to the confusion instead of clarifying anything.

Ishii

It adds to confusion because people don’t want to understand it. If only a small part of the population received SS then it would be seen as what it is, a welfare program. But, too many people have a vested interest in not understanding it.

 

[ishii]

There is the perception that it is different. Legally, it is no different from TANF or food stamps. You notice that nobody ever disputes the legal angle, that legally it is no different from other welfare programs. I tell my students that FDR was brilliant to put in the payroll tax to pay for SS because it would create a sense of entitlement that is hard to get rid of. These forums are proof of that. Think of it, you have so called conservatives, defending a welfare program and trying their best to define it as not welfare.

It adds to confusion because people don’t want to understand it. If only a small part of the population received SS then it would be seen as what it is, a welfare program. But, too many people have a vested interest in not understanding it.

Stinkcat, what adds to the confusion is when you call some a socialist who merely understands that its not politically feasible at this point, to reform or replace SS and medicare. It also adds to confusion when you say that there is no difference between a party which votes 100% for Obamacare and a party which votes 100% to oppose Obamacare.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

Stinkcat, what adds to the confusion is when you call some a socialist who merely understands that its not politically feasible at this point, to reform or replace SS and medicare.

Which politician is in favor of medicare and social security solely because they understand that it is not politically feasible to get rid of social security. We cannot dispute that social security is a socialistic policy, of that there is no doubt. But which politician is on record as saying that it is a socialist redistributive policy, but I will vote for it because of political expediency? Can you name some names?

It also adds to confusion when you say that there is no difference between a party which votes 100% for Obamacare and a party which votes 100% to oppose Obamacare.

Ishii

Ishii

I did not say there was no difference between the parties. You are the one sowing confusion here. I said that they are both big government, welfare loving parties. That you cannot dispute.

 

[ishii]

Which politician is in favor of medicare and social security solely because they understand that it is not politically feasible to get rid of social security. We cannot dispute that social security is a socialistic policy, of that there is no doubt. But which politician is on record as saying that it is a socialist redistributive policy, but I will vote for it because of political expediency? Can you name some names?
.

Stinkcat - are you denying that its political suicide to stand for abolishing SS and medicare?

Ishii

 

[Tomdstone]

Obamacare was determined by the Supreme Court to be a tax, not an insurance program, hence why Congress was able to pass it as law. That’s from the Supreme Court and they are the final rule of law. The benefits that people receive from it is simply call welfare.

The decision was controversial.

 

[Tomdstone]

Stinkcat - are you denying that its political suicide to stand for abolishing SS and medicare?

Ishii

This is an indication that it is the free choice of the American people to be covered by SS.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Stinkcat - are you denying that its political suicide to stand for abolishing SS and medicare?

Ishii

I am not denying that it would be politically difficult to do that. But if republicans support socialist programs like social security and medicare and they give no indication of being anything other than socialists, how are we going to determine that they are not socialists?

 

[Tomdstone]

I am not denying that it would be politically difficult to do that. But if republicans support socialist programs like social security and medicare and they give no indication of being anything other than socialists, how are we going to determine that they are not socialists?

AFAIK, a socialist is someone who is in favor of nationalizing the major industries and commercial enterprises. No one has been talking of nationalizing WalMart, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Apple, Ford Motor, General Electric, Costco, HP, Bank of America, IBM, Best Buy, Delta Air, DuPont, etc.

 

[ishii]

I am not denying that it would be politically difficult to do that. But if republicans support socialist programs like social security and medicare and they give no indication of being anything other than socialists, how are we going to determine that they are not socialists?

That you would merely call “politically difficult” an action that is completely out of the question, and political suicide, suggests to me you are not in touch with political reality.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

AFAIK, a socialist is someone who is in favor of nationalizing the major industries and commercial enterprises. No one has been talking of nationalizing WalMart, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Apple, Ford Motor, General Electric, Costco, HP, Bank of America, IBM, Best Buy, Delta Air, DuPont, etc.

Perhaps the modern day socialists ( I prefer the term secular leftists) are fine with technically not owning the big industries - as long as they can control them. Perhaps more importantly is their control of society and how effectively they steer it to ever greater acceptance of the cultural goals of the secular left. They have achieved this largely by controlling our education system and popular culture.

Good ol’ blue collar Catholics say, “the Democrats aren’t socialists, they don’t favor taking over all the industries, they just want to help the little guy find a job and have healthcare.” Meanwhile, the left gradually convinces our youth to abandon the Church and traditional institutions, and embrace cultural Marxist goals of gay marriage, abortion, etc.

Ishii

 

[zz912]

I did not say there was no difference between the parties. You are the one sowing confusion here. I said that they are both big government, welfare loving parties. That you cannot dispute.

Your third sentence contradicts your first sentence.