You believe that, and I've got a great bridge in San Francisco to sell ya.
here is an example:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.html
This is the original pamphlet issued in 1936 regarding social security. Notice it is from the SSA website.
Choice quotes:
"The checks will come to you as a right. You will get them regardless of the amount of property or income you may have."
Today: http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html
"In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right."
Quote 2:
"finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.
Today: http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
12.4% - four times the promised maximum.
Don't tell me that the government could create a unique identifier for each and every one of its citizens and then not expect it to be used by others.....
That being said, there is NO social security trust fund. The social security surpluses were mandated by law to be invested in government bonds.
So what you say?
Government bonds are how we have financed our national debt, and our daily deficit. The problem becomes that in 2018 or thereabouts the money being paid in to SS will be less than the money being paid out. At that point the government will have to start redeeming the bonds to pay the difference. Here is the catch. They pay off the bond by issuing new bonds and printing more money, which creates inflation. SS payments are protected against inflation however, so you will get a situation where SS creates inflationary pressure, in a positive feedback loop.
Frankly I'd be happy to let them keep the money they have taken if I could just opt the hell out from now on.
Of course while Bush speaks of "privatization" he means NOTHING of the sort. My take is the government will put out a list of "acceptable" companies and or mutual funds to invest in. This makes said corporations more insulated from stockholder complaints. Don't like the fortune 500 companies records on human rights? Tough! They will be the only government approved investment choices and as such won't care.
"Holy crap...one can do so much with a SSN. I hate to say it, but I think it's time the Government steps in. Tis sort of thing simply cannot be allowed to continue. These data warehousing companies must be held to account. "
Ummm you realize the reason we are in this mess is BECAUSE the government created the SSN to begin with don't you?
The process is as follows:
1. Create bureacratic law to "solve" perceived problem, and increase governmental power. 2. Step one above creates additional problems. 3. Goto step one...
BTW the article is irrelevant. If you have ever gotten any official court papers, a mortgage etc, I suggest you check your county recorder's office. Most are so clueless as to make your public records available via the internet.
These will likely have your SSN, YOUR SIGNATURE, and other personal information as well.
"If the political process is right, the people should hold enough power over the politicians too."
The best and safest government is the LEAST government you can get away with and still have a relatively safe society. The best way to do this is to keep as much power as possible close to the individual. This means YOU make most of the choices in your life, and suffer the outcome of those choices, both good and bad.
I have yet to see a political process where the people hold enough power over a politician to keep him or her honest. The best you can hope for in most political systems is that differing interests will block power plays by opposing interests.
"So you preffer unsactioned violence and authority?"
Frankly yes! because Un-sanctioned violence does not have an aura of respectability that state sanctioned violence does. If I invade your house, it is clear to EVERYONE, that I had no right to do so and have committed a crime. If the USA invades Iraq without being attacked first, it is not viewed by everyone as a crime, even though the loss of life and property is exponentially greater.
"Money cannot give power unless the government enforces it."
Wrong my friend, the ability to CREATE money is where power comes from in the government. When a government is limited in its ability to create money, collect money and spend money its power over people is limited. The best check upon this is type of abuse is using something of value for money, i.e. a gold standard.
"Money is nothing without political power."
FIAT money is nothing without political power. FIAT money is what most of the world is using these days. It means the government of whatever nation you happen to be living in can create money out of thin air, to spend how it chooses, allowing the politicians currently in power to bribe the masses with bread and circuses. In addition because governments can create money, they are targets for corruption. The sad part is most people do not understand that inflation (the ability of a government to devalue its money by creating more) is an inherently evil thing. It penalizes those people who choose to scrimp and save, as it makes their previous effort worth less.
Money - or a medium of exchange has existed without government. In order for it to do so however, it must have a perceived value by both parties.
You recognize that people can be corrupted. Yet you then give the government more power? Why? In the hopes that with more power the politicians and bureacrats will be less corrupt?
If you accept that man can be corrupted does it not make sense to minimize the power that politicians can hold over the people?
Better IMO to keep the playing field of power limited to money. At least that way state sanctioned violence and authority cannot be abused.
There was a reason the founding fathers here in America chose a REPUBLIC versus a democracy. Unfortunately we have been moving steadily toward a direct democracy. This means we are losing the whole system of checks and balances, protection of the minority from the majority,fiscal restraint, etc.
The historical pattern seems to be Republic-->Democracy-->Dictatorship-->Revolution (or Collapse)
for going down the road of federalism. Power concentrates in the hands of a few people who answer to those with the most money.
Europe should have learned from our example in "these United States". An ever growing centralization of power has not served the cause of liberty nor the common man well. Men are corruptible. Thus the more you concentrate power, the fewer people you need to corrupt in order for things to turn to shit.
What about the electron interference experiments? I.e. the classic send electrons toward a screen with multiple slits cut in it.
The interference pattern is created even if you release one electron at a time thus suggesting that the electron has taken ALL possible routes through the screen.
Then according to you the right to bear arms does mean just my ARMS correct? As that is clearly the Plain meaning of the word ARMS.
I'm glad to see that the supreme court no longer has to research what the founding fathers meant when they hand down their rulings.
BTW, accoring to your reading of the "General Welfare" clause, this:
"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. "
Is now meaningless as power over every facet of life can be construed through your interpretation of the general welfare.
Me too. Frankly, I'd be happy to let them keep the money they have already sucked out of me if I could just quit paying in.
The most amusing part is there is NO federal law requiring you to have an SSN check this out IRS
Straight from the IRS website:
"There is no federal law administered by any federal agency which prohibits the hiring of a person based solely on the fact that the person does not have a Social Security Number (SSN). Similarly, there is no federal law which prohibits the making of a payment to a person based solely on the fact that the person does not have an SSN."
Look for a federal law requiring you to get a SSN, there is NONE. Press the SS administration for the law and they will admit (after much arm twisting) that no such law exists. So in theory it is voluntary. But try to get ANY kind of policy or procedure to withdraw yourself from SS. It does not exist.
and you are an example of my point. To understand the constitution, AND what the states agreed to you must understand the intentions of the writers, and the generally accepted meaning of the words WHEN THEY WERE WRITTEN.
The arguments at the time boil down to one side saying "If we put the general welfare clause in, the federal government will eventually use it as an excuse for unlimited governmental power"
and the other side which said "no one could be that stupid as to interpret the general welfare clause in such a way."
your argument is as silly as saying the right to bear arms refers to exactly that, my ARMS, not guns nor weapons nor firearms, just the arms attached to my body.
"The Constitution was ratified by the states based on what it said, not on what Madison really meant."
The Constitution was ratified by the states based upon THEIR understanding of what it said at the time of ratification.
there was much debate about the "General welfare " clause and the insterstate commerce clause.
Both clauses were not meant to enable a blank check for federal power. Unfortunately, most people and most congress critters do not know and do not care about following the constitution.
James Madison on the General Welfare Clause Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. - James Madison
James Madison, Report on Resolutions, in 6 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.
[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817), in 10 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON at 90, 91 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., 1899) quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.
Glad to see that a former government official who took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution has obviously NOT read the constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
Well, if case you haven't been following the news, the Reps and Dems are proposing checkpoints INSIDE the country.
From the article:
"McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, airports, bus stations, train stations, federal buildings, telephone companies, Internet hubs and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Secretary Tom Ridge would appear to be authorized to issue new federal IDs--with biometric identifiers--that Americans could be required to show at checkpoints. "
So I'd say stop the terrorists AT the border instead of making me show papers inside the country.
For those considering casting their vote for the lesser of two evils, check out Inverse vote pairing.
Find a family member or friend who would cancel out your lesser evil vote. Make a deal with them to both vote third party. You get to take a vote AWAY from your greater evil, and the third paties get two votes. If enough people did this when the candidates suck perhaps we'd have REAL debates?
There is a question as to whether or not wages fall under the LEGAL definition of income. There is also a question whether or not the 16th amd give the power for DIRECT taxation.
I am not saying I agree but I have read some of the arguments. They are fairly interesting.
There is a difference between the philosophy of libertariansism and the reality of it. I am a Lib, but I do NOT think that the philosophy will work 100% in the real world. The point that most people miss AND the "purist" Libs miss is that while the constitution limits the power of the fed, that states are not so limited. Thus you could still have state owned roads, schools etc.
With the Libs in power on the federal level, I think you would see a great variation in towns cities etc. I.E. some green/socialist towns some lib towns and some a mix of the two. It is moving the direction of power towards the people that is the important thing, so they can better decide for themselves on the issues they care about.
Slashdot Mirror
You believe that, and I've got a great bridge in San Francisco to sell ya.
:
:
here is an example:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.html
This is the original pamphlet issued in 1936 regarding social security. Notice it is from the SSA website.
Choice quotes
"The checks will come to you as a right. You will get them regardless of the amount of property or income you may have."
Today
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html
"In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right."
Quote 2:
"finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.
Today:
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
12.4% - four times the promised maximum.
Don't tell me that the government could create a unique identifier for each and every one of its citizens and then not expect it to be used by others.....
Let me say I think BUSH is an ASSHAT.
That being said, there is NO social security trust fund. The social security surpluses were mandated by law to be invested in government bonds.
So what you say?
Government bonds are how we have financed our national debt, and our daily deficit. The problem becomes that in 2018 or thereabouts the money being paid in to SS will be less than the money being paid out. At that point the government will have to start redeeming the bonds to pay the difference.
Here is the catch. They pay off the bond by issuing new bonds and printing more money, which creates inflation. SS payments are protected against inflation however, so you will get a situation where SS creates inflationary pressure, in a positive feedback loop.
Frankly I'd be happy to let them keep the money they have taken if I could just opt the hell out from now on.
Of course while Bush speaks of "privatization" he means NOTHING of the sort. My take is the government will put out a list of "acceptable" companies and or mutual funds to invest in. This makes said corporations more insulated from stockholder complaints. Don't like the fortune 500 companies records on human rights? Tough! They will be the only government approved investment choices and as such won't care.
"Holy crap...one can do so much with a SSN.
:
I hate to say it, but I think it's time the Government steps in. Tis sort of thing simply cannot be allowed to continue. These data warehousing companies must be held to account. "
Ummm you realize the reason we are in this mess is BECAUSE the government created the SSN to begin with don't you?
The process is as follows
1. Create bureacratic law to "solve" perceived problem, and increase governmental power.
2. Step one above creates additional problems.
3. Goto step one...
BTW the article is irrelevant. If you have ever gotten any official court papers, a mortgage etc,
I suggest you check your county recorder's office. Most are so clueless as to make your public records available via the internet.
These will likely have your SSN, YOUR SIGNATURE, and other personal information as well.
You are working under the false impressions that:
A) Congress critters have READ the constitution.
B) Congress critters can UNDERSTAND the Constitution.
C) Congress critters actually READ the legislation they are voting on.
Except for Congressman Ron Paul, I don't think anyone in congress or the white house can pass
the above three criteria....
"If the political process is right, the people should hold enough power over the politicians too."
The best and safest government is the LEAST government you can get away with and still have a relatively safe society. The best way to do this is to keep as much power as possible close to the individual. This means YOU make most of the choices in your life, and suffer the outcome of those choices, both good and bad.
I have yet to see a political process where the people hold enough power over a politician to keep him or her honest. The best you can hope for in most political systems is that differing interests will block power plays by opposing interests.
"So you preffer unsactioned violence and authority?"
Frankly yes! because Un-sanctioned violence does not have an aura of respectability that state sanctioned violence does. If I invade your house, it is clear to EVERYONE, that I had no right to do so and have committed a crime. If the USA invades Iraq without being attacked first, it is not viewed by everyone as a crime, even though the loss of life and property is exponentially greater.
"Money cannot give power unless the government enforces it."
Wrong my friend, the ability to CREATE money is where power comes from in the government. When a government is limited in its ability to create money, collect money and spend money its power over people is limited. The best check upon this is type of abuse is using something of value for money, i.e. a gold standard.
"Money is nothing without political power."
FIAT money is nothing without political power. FIAT money is what most of the world is using these days. It means the government of whatever nation you happen to be living in can create money out of thin air, to spend how it chooses, allowing the politicians currently in power to bribe the masses with bread and circuses. In addition because governments can create money, they are targets for corruption. The sad part is most people do not understand that inflation (the ability of a government to devalue its money by creating more) is an inherently evil thing. It penalizes those people who choose to scrimp and save, as it makes their previous effort worth less.
Money - or a medium of exchange has existed without government. In order for it to do so however, it must have a perceived value by both parties.
You recognize that people can be corrupted. Yet you then give the government more power? Why?
In the hopes that with more power the politicians and bureacrats will be less corrupt?
If you accept that man can be corrupted does it not make sense to minimize the power that politicians can hold over the people?
Better IMO to keep the playing field of power limited to money. At least that way state sanctioned violence and authority cannot be abused.
There was a reason the founding fathers here in America chose a REPUBLIC versus a democracy.
Unfortunately we have been moving steadily toward a direct democracy. This means we are losing the whole system of checks and balances, protection of the minority from the majority,fiscal restraint, etc.
The historical pattern seems to be Republic-->Democracy-->Dictatorship-->Revolution (or Collapse)
for going down the road of federalism.
Power concentrates in the hands of a few people who answer to those with the most money.
Europe should have learned from our example in "these United States". An ever growing centralization of power has not served the cause of liberty nor the common man well. Men are corruptible. Thus the more you concentrate power, the fewer people you need to corrupt in order for things to turn to shit.
What about the electron interference experiments?
I.e. the classic send electrons toward a screen with multiple slits cut in it.
The interference pattern is created even if you release one electron at a time thus suggesting that the electron has taken ALL possible routes
through the screen.
Then according to you the right to bear arms does mean just my ARMS correct? As that is clearly the Plain meaning of the word ARMS.
:
I'm glad to see that the supreme court no longer has to research what the founding fathers meant when they hand down their rulings.
BTW, accoring to your reading of the "General Welfare" clause, this
"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. "
Is now meaningless as power over every facet of life can be construed through your interpretation of the general welfare.
Me too. Frankly, I'd be happy to let them keep the money they have already sucked out of me if I could just quit paying in.
:
The most amusing part is there is NO federal law requiring you to have an SSN check this out IRS
Straight from the IRS website
"There is no federal law administered by any federal agency which prohibits the hiring of a person based solely on the fact that the person does not have a Social Security Number (SSN). Similarly, there is no federal law which prohibits the making of a payment to a person based solely on the fact that the person does not have an SSN."
Look for a federal law requiring you to get a SSN, there is NONE. Press the SS administration for the law and they will admit (after much arm twisting) that no such law exists. So in theory it is voluntary. But try to get ANY kind of policy or procedure to withdraw yourself from SS. It does not exist.
Ahh no...
and you are an example of my point. To understand the constitution, AND what the states agreed to you must understand the intentions of the writers, and the generally accepted meaning of the words WHEN THEY WERE WRITTEN.
The arguments at the time boil down to one side saying "If we put the general welfare clause in, the federal government will eventually use it as an excuse for unlimited governmental power"
and the other side which said "no one could be that stupid as to interpret the general welfare clause in such a way."
your argument is as silly as saying the right to bear arms refers to exactly that, my ARMS, not guns nor weapons nor firearms, just the arms attached to my body.
"The Constitution was ratified by the states based on what it said, not on what Madison really meant."
The Constitution was ratified by the states based upon THEIR understanding of what it said at the time of ratification.
there was much debate about the "General welfare " clause and the insterstate commerce clause.
Both clauses were not meant to enable a blank check for federal power. Unfortunately, most people and most congress critters do not know and do not care about following the constitution.
James Madison on the General Welfare Clause
Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. - James Madison
James Madison, Report on Resolutions, in 6 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.
[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817), in 10 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON at 90, 91 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., 1899) quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.
Glad to see that a former government official who took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution has obviously NOT read the constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
do not welcome the Calizonia overlords!
Please leave my state. All of the CA. asshats moving here to AZ. are going to fuck up the gun ownership laws, smoking laws etc.
I do not want to be a mini california, and frankly you guys are nuts.
I think removing the 17th would restore the balance of power between the states and the fed.
Well, if case you haven't been following the news, the Reps and Dems are proposing checkpoints INSIDE the country.
:
From the article
"McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, airports, bus stations, train stations, federal buildings, telephone companies, Internet hubs and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Secretary Tom Ridge would appear to be authorized to issue new federal IDs--with biometric identifiers--that Americans could be required to show at checkpoints. "
So I'd say stop the terrorists AT the border instead of making me show papers inside the country.
For those considering casting their vote for the lesser of two evils, check out Inverse vote pairing.
Find a family member or friend who would cancel out your lesser evil vote. Make a deal with them to both vote third party. You get to take a vote AWAY from your greater evil, and the third paties get two votes. If enough people did this when the candidates suck perhaps we'd have REAL debates?
There is a question as to whether or not wages
fall under the LEGAL definition of income.
There is also a question whether or not the 16th amd give the power for DIRECT taxation.
I am not saying I agree but I have read some of the arguments. They are fairly interesting.
has annexed Albuquerque!
There is a difference between the philosophy of libertariansism and the reality of it. I am a Lib, but I do NOT think that the philosophy will work 100% in the real world. The point that most people miss AND the "purist" Libs miss is that while the constitution limits the power of the fed, that states are not so limited. Thus you could still have state owned roads, schools etc.
With the Libs in power on the federal level, I think you would see a great variation in towns cities etc. I.E. some green/socialist towns some lib towns and some a mix of the two. It is moving the direction of power towards the people that is the important thing, so they can better decide for themselves on the issues they care about.
But that is why I'm voting for neither Corporate Clown....
Badnarik may not win, but he is IMO the only sane choice.
"At least three times that many, plus about 900,000,000 Iranian soldiers in the gratuitous war he started."
Don't forget that we provided intelligence TO
Saddam during that war
if a congressman didn't read it, or didn't understand it, then I would expect him to
VOTE NO as an automatic response....
"Works from Montreal, Canada... Are we considered the 51st state?"
not YET........
The War on Terra, coming soon to a country near you.