Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#94 – S&B,
Until this post I’m writing now, no one but you has used the word “insurance” on this thread. So, I’m not sure why you find that important. None of us thought it was.
Since, you were too lazy to actually post a link to that social security ruling by the supremes, I googled. Here’s what I found.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/301/619/
So, tell me why your quote is not on this page. Or, post an actual link to a reputable site when you make a claim.
Scott what I wrote was different from Sea Lawyers. SSA is filled with IOUs from the Government, except SSA is part of the government. This is worse than having IOUs from Fusion. If you write yourself an IOU, you are not making yourself wealthier.
And again, even if you accept the strength of that system, which is what everyone does, SS is still going bankrupt.
#97 – MikeN,
Actually, it’s more like your own C Corp having IOUs from yourself. If you try to default on them, you must declare bankruptcy. They are separate legal entities.
As for SS going bankrupt, I would love to be so bankrupt. Forty years of financial stability is probably greater than any other federal program can claim. Minor tweaks will take it well beyond that.
That’s exactly why the pols like to include SS on the balance sheet, even though it is a separate legal entity. It makes the rest of our dismal finances look better. Why? Because it’s our only solvent program!
#91, Scott,
Neither. I’m at home recuperating from some surgery and chemo.
As for knowing about the SSA, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express a while back. 8)
Actually this was on a 60 Minutes program (or similar show) a few years back. This might have been during the 2000 Presidential campaign. After some checking I was wrong about the location of the offices. They are actually in Maryland, close to Baltimore. The TV program did show the file cabinet and the Secretary even pulled out some bonds to show the camera. The bonds though are just the paper record of the electronic transactions between the SSA and Treasury.
Like you, if I don’t know something or if what I am told doesn’t sound right, I will research for the correct answer. I learn a lot that way.
#99 “Most parts of Nestor have been overturned in the years since and other entitlement cases have succeeded. See Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), and King v. Smith (1968)”
You just cited 2 cases that were decided years BEFORE Nestor.
#101, Cow-Paddy.
You just cited 2 cases that were decided years BEFORE Nestor.
Fleming v Nestor was decided in 1960. That is 10 and 8 years respectfully.
Here is a right wing nut CATO institute link.
And a Findlaw transcript.
Still think they were decided later?
Moran.
#101, Cow-Paddy,
And here is an intelligent discussion of Nestor. Somehow I don’t think you’ll read it as there aren’t any pictures.
The U.S. Constitution does not allow government to provide ordinary people with entitlements such as welfare or Social Security benefits. It is not a government function to provide entitlements to people. It is not a government function to take care of people. Nor is there any authorized source of funds to take care of people, nor can civil servants receive a paycheck for performing such non-governmental services. And indeed, your Government does not give entitlements to ordinary people. Ordinary people cannot qualify for federal benefits. Again: it is not a government function to provide entitlements to people.
When the Constitution was considered for ratification by the State Senates, some people were suspicious of the “general welfare” clause and tried to claim that these two words could authorize any kind of welfare. The general welfare clause in Article 1, Section 8 of your Constitution reads: “The Congress shall have Power to … provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;…” It is an introductory phrase which is followed, after a semi-colon, by a specific list of the 17 things the new government would be authorized to do, such as; to establish post offices, coin money, make treaties, establish standard weights and measures, provide for a Navy, punish pirates, punish counterfeiting, fund a temporary army, declare war, and exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all cases in the future District of Columbia.
To counter those rumors that the general welfare clause in the proposed Constitution would authorize any kind of welfare, James Madison, in Federalist Paper #41, explained its clear intent. He stated that it “is an absurdity” to claim that the General Welfare clause confounds or misleads, because this introductory clause is followed by enumeration of specific particulars that explain and qualify the meaning of phrase “general welfare”.
That’s right! The Constitution was ratified under the assurance that it would never be interpreted to provide welfare to individuals. And it has not. And indeed, to this very day, your U.S. government can not and does not provide entitlements to ordinary Americans. Here is the catch: The ONLY way to qualify for entitlements, such as welfare or Social Security, is to become a ward of a foreign authority. The U.S. government administers their program as their agent. Social Security and Welfare remain Constitutional because ordinary Americans cannot qualify for entitlements. The Supreme Court says, 92 U.S. 551: “It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”
Congress cannot appropriate funds for entitlements to Americans. No one who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution can lawfully spend funds for any entitlement. Government funds can only be spent for legitimate purposes. Examples: In 1792 President James Madison vetoed a congressional appropriation to assist refugees. He said: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
President Franklin Pierce in 1854 vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill. He said “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity…. [this] would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”
#104–S&B==you ought to read what your government has been doing AFTER 1854.
Anyone arguing Madison is only 250 years out of the loop.
#105 – bobbo,
I’m going to disagree on arguing about Madison … or Jefferson. If we were talking about separation of church and state, I hope you wouldn’t stick by that statement.
Minor point, but it had to be made, I think. At least I felt it did for my own self-consistency.
#106==Scott==you can’t pick and choose when some dead guy is relevant. 99.99% of the time, current (ie within last 20 years) court cases and current law are referenced. Its only when you have no argument at all that one quotes international sources, the dictionary, or the founding fathers.
Relevancy is like that.
#107 – bobbo,
Perhaps in court this is true. However, in the case of logical arguments on separation of church and state as well as in the constitution, it is sometimes quite relevant.
#108–arguments about the constitution outside a courtroom are – – – irrelevant. Doesn’t matter how logical they are when discussing an issue from an historical perspective that is not relevant to what the law will command.
You have fallen prey to the infantilization of the voting public. I already gave you .01% of the pie, how much more do you unreasonably demand?
#102 “Fleming v Nestor was decided in 1960.”
Oops. Sorry, my early morning eyes read 1980. Thanks for correcting me.
#100 – Mr. Fusion
I hope you fully recover from your surgery and chemotherapy. Where as we are polar opposites regarding politics I wish you a speedy recovery.
Here’s to many more years of arguments.
S&B
#104, Confederate Traitor,
The U.S. Constitution does not allow government to provide ordinary people with entitlements such as welfare or Social Security benefits.
Where in the Constitution is any governing level forbidden to provide any service to the citizenry?
It is not a government function to provide entitlements to people.
Says who?
blah, blah, blah,
Says who?
When the Constitution was considered for ratification by the State Senates, some people were suspicious of the “general welfare” clause and tried to claim that these two words could authorize any kind of welfare.
Who said or claimed that? I studied the entire Constitutional Congress and the founding of the nation. This is news to me that they were worried about something that wouldn’t take place for almost 100 years.
Examples: In 1792 President James Madison vetoed a congressional appropriation to assist refugees.
Madison didn’t become President until 1809.
Fuck this. Your interpretation here is just plain wrong. Quit listening to these jerks that don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.
If I’m not mistaken, you have also tried to argue that Income Tax is illegal.