PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Rules: U.S. Seniors Not Entitled to Social Security




DamianTV
12-29-2015, 02:05 AM
http://americanspotlight.com/news/supreme-court-rules-u-s-seniors-not-entitled-to-social-security/


Most people see Social Security as a contract between you and the government. You pay money into the system and they pay it back at a later date.Guaranteed by law.

But nothing could be further from the truth…

You have no choice when it comes to paying your Social Security taxes. It comes out of your paycheck automatically.

But did you know the government isn’t under the same rigid contract?

In fact, by ruling of the United States Supreme Court, the federal government is under no obligation to pay you a Social Security check.

They can decide to spend the money on something else at any time.

This is the clear precedent set in the case of Flemming v. Nestor.

Ephram Nestor was an immigrant from Bulgaria. He moved here in 1918 and paid Social Security taxes from the very beginning of the program, 1936.

In 1955, when he retired, Nestor began receiving Social Security checks for $55.60 per month.

But just one year later, Nestor was deported. Turns out, he’d been an active member of the Communist Party in the 1930s, giving the U.S. government grounds to kick him out.

When he was deported, his Social Security checks stopped. Nestor sued the U.S. government, arguing that since he had paid money into the program, he had a right to those benefits.

The Supreme Court ruled against Nestor, saying the government had the right to terminate Social Security at any time.

Interestingly enough, the Social Security Administration has a full page on their website devoted to the Nestor case.

The people who sign the Social Security checks sum it up this way:

“[Nestor] appealed the termination, arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right.”

Read that again…

You have no contractual right to Social Security.

...

(full article on link)

I figured this would be good for a debate. So, DEBATE!

All I can think of is Ron Paul vs Entitlements...

Of course, somehow, youre required to pay into it, but cant get a dime back out of it. Sounds like a ploy even Bernie Madoff (you know, he Made Off with my money Madoff) would be proud of!

Zippyjuan
12-29-2015, 03:01 AM
Illegal immigrants pay into the Social Security fund but are not eligible for benefits. In the above case, Nestor was an immigrant who was deported and after deportation his Social Security benefits canceled. The case was filed under the Fifth Amendment- saying his benefits had been terminated without a fair trial- denying him "due process". the court ruled he had not been denied "due process". https://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html


APPELLEE, AN ALIEN, IMMIGRATED TO THIS COUNTRY FROM BULGARIA IN 1913,
AND BECAME ELIGIBLE FOR OLD-AGE BENEFITS IN NOVEMBER 1955. IN JULY
1956 HE WAS DEPORTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 241(A)(6)(C)(I) OF THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT FOR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY FROM 1933 TO 1939. THIS BEING ONE OF THE BENEFIT
TERMINATION DEPORTATION GROUNDS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 202(N), APPELLEE'S
BENEFITS WERE TERMINATED SOON THEREAFTER, AND NOTICE OF THE TERMINATION
WAS GIVEN TO HIS WIFE, WHO HAD REMAINED IN THIS COUNTRY. (FN2) UPON
HIS FAILURE TO OBTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE REVERSAL OF THE DECISION, APPELLEE
COMMENCED THIS ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT, PURSUANT TO SEC. 205(G) OF
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT (53 STAT. 1370, AS AMENDED, 42 U.S.C. SEC.
405(G)), TO SECURE JUDICIAL REVIEW. (FN3) ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT RULED FOR APPELLEE, HOLDING SEC.
202(N) UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT IN THAT IT DEPRIVED APPELLEE OF AN ACCRUED PROPERTY RIGHT.
169 F. SUPP. 922.

TheTexan
12-29-2015, 03:21 AM
Social security is for Americans, not no damned deported immigrants

mrsat_98
12-29-2015, 03:35 AM
OP you are exactly right, paying in is voluntary as well till you start dealing with the brain dead constitutional idiots of today's society.

Zippyjuan
12-29-2015, 03:42 AM
OP you are exactly right, paying in is voluntary as well till you start dealing with the brain dead constitutional idiots of today's society.

Only some people have the option of not paying it. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2011-04-27-opting-out-of-social-security_n.htm


.Believe it or not, there are ways for a very small percentage of the population to opt out of paying into Social Security.

The first way to get out of paying into Social Security is by being a member of the clergy, according to Joe Elsasser, a financial planner who specializes in Social Security and other related financial topics. Elsasser strongly advises against this for reasons to be discussed later in this column. However, clergy can opt out of Social Security by filing IRS Form 4361, which is the Application for Exemption From Self-Employment Tax for Use by Minister, Members of Religious Orders and Christian Science Practitioners.

There's another very limited way to avoid paying into Social Security, says Craig Copeland, senior researcher for the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Some federal workers covered under the old retirement plan — many of whom are approaching retirement age now — could avoid paying in, he says. New and newer federal employees, though, must pay into Social Security, Copeland says.

There are some state workers in Alaska, Colorado, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada and Ohio who can opt out of Social Security Copeland says. These state have statewide coverage systems that are not part of Social Security, he says.

There are additional exemptions for other state workers. For instance, teachers in Connecticut, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Texas and California do not participate in Social Security. Some teachers in Rhode Island, Georgia, Oklahoma and Minnesota also do not participate, Copeland says.

However, that's it. If you're self-employed or work for a private company, you must pay into Social Security, Copeland says

DamianTV
12-29-2015, 03:53 AM
Only some people have the option of not paying it. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2011-04-27-opting-out-of-social-security_n.htm

Who the fuck asked you for permission to not pay? Or for that matter USA Today? Im sure a bunch of moronic MSM talking heads will know contract law, but they sure as shit act like it.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:14 AM
Paying in to SS should not be mandatory. However, so long as it IS mandatory to pay in, it should NOT be optional to pay out. That seems pretty shitty to me.

timosman
12-29-2015, 04:30 AM
Paying in to SS should not be mandatory. However, so long as it IS mandatory to pay in, it should NOT be optional to pay out. That seems pretty shitty to me.

SS is a tax.

mrsat_98
12-29-2015, 04:48 AM
Paying in to SS should not be mandatory. However, so long as it IS mandatory to pay in, it should NOT be optional to pay out. That seems pretty shitty to me.


SS is a tax.

http://www.gematrix.org/?word=SS+NUMBER

Ss Number in English Gematria Equals: 666

http://www.gematrix.org/?word=pay+taxes

PAT TAXES in English Gematria Equals: 666

http://www.gematrix.org/?word=us+of+America

US of America = 666


Nuff Said

Ronin Truth
12-29-2015, 09:44 AM
Just one more bogus BS government ponzi scheme scam and con.

"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"

erowe1
12-29-2015, 09:51 AM
Of course no one is entitled to receiving any Social Security. Every penny anyone gets from the government has to be stolen from someone else. The fact that A was robbed in the past to pay B doesn't entitle A to get paid in the future by robbing C. And if the Supreme Court ever had said otherwise, it would have been wrong.

erowe1
12-29-2015, 09:52 AM
Paying in to SS should not be mandatory. However, so long as it IS mandatory to pay in, it should NOT be optional to pay out. That seems pretty shitty to me.

How do we ever get out of the cycle without at some point ceasing to pay out to people who had paid in?

fisharmor
12-29-2015, 10:33 AM
How do we ever get out of the cycle without at some point ceasing to pay out to people who had paid in?

Exactly. I thought we were all here because we already knew and accepted that none of this stuff works.
Then we have a thread talking about one of the programs not working, and everyone gets surprised?
The only reason people don't grab torches and pitchforks and burn it all down is because they perceive these schemes as working most of the time.
Any talk in the direction of "this program should do X instead of Y" presumes that it's even possible to get it to work better.
If you believe that, then either you're on the wrong site, or I am.

phill4paul
12-29-2015, 10:39 AM
Just another reason why I am a conscientious objector to forced taxation and have quit paying to the extent that I am able.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 10:42 AM
How do we ever get out of the cycle without at some point ceasing to pay out to people who had paid in?

If you pay out equal to what was paid in, it balances. Once the accounts are balanced you can end it without robbing anyone. My plan would be to draw it down over 10 years and provide assistance to help people transition to private plans that accomplish the same thing. At the end of the 10 years, everyone gets the last dime they paid in, and now everyone is on a better, private plan, and the government no longer practices socialism.

The key is balancing to zero. That is fair. Promising to take care of people when they are old and infirm, taking tens of thousands of dollars from them in order to fulfill that promise, and then dumping them on the street with nothing, well, that's a "cure" a thousand times worse than the ailment.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 10:46 AM
Exactly. I thought we were all here because we already knew and accepted that none of this stuff works.
Then we have a thread talking about one of the programs not working, and everyone gets surprised?
The only reason people don't grab torches and pitchforks and burn it all down is because they perceive these schemes as working most of the time.
Any talk in the direction of "this program should do X instead of Y" presumes that it's even possible to get it to work better.
If you believe that, then either you're on the wrong site, or I am.

Just because SS doesn't work doesn't mean the gov can take thousands of dollars from me on the promise of getting it back, and then not give it back. It's a malinvestment problem. Had they NOT monopolized my retirement, then I could have invested that money into a superior, private plan. As long as they are going to force people into their scheme at gunpoint then they damn well better pay it back out, otherwise they are directly murdering people by leaving them homeless, penniless, and foodless.

SS is horrible, broken, inefficient, and needs to be ended. Just outright killing half of everyone over 70 is not the way to end it.

Ronin Truth
12-29-2015, 11:28 AM
Just because SS doesn't work doesn't mean the gov can take thousands of dollars from me on the promise of getting it back, and then not give it back. It's a malinvestment problem. Had they NOT monopolized my retirement, then I could have invested that money into a superior, private plan. As long as they are going to force people into their scheme at gunpoint then they damn well better pay it back out, otherwise they are directly murdering people by leaving them homeless, penniless, and foodless.

SS is horrible, broken, inefficient, and needs to be ended. Just outright killing half of everyone over 70 is not the way to end it.

The NWO depopulation program agenda really just isn't very picky about where the increased body count quota numbers come from.

erowe1
12-29-2015, 11:34 AM
Just because SS doesn't work doesn't mean the gov can take thousands of dollars from me on the promise of getting it back, and then not give it back. It's a malinvestment problem. Had they NOT monopolized my retirement, then I could have invested that money into a superior, private plan. As long as they are going to force people into their scheme at gunpoint then they damn well better pay it back out, otherwise they are directly murdering people by leaving them homeless, penniless, and foodless.

SS is horrible, broken, inefficient, and needs to be ended. Just outright killing half of everyone over 70 is not the way to end it.

I disagree about the outcome you predict. Getting the government out of it would essentially voluntarize the redistribution of wealth. Rather than having the government rob A to give to B, it will be up to A to do it without the government as middle man. The fact that Social Security is such a popular program is proof that there is no shortage of people who are willing to see money from their own incomes used to care for the poor. Without the government involved, they would end up doing that more efficiently.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 11:37 AM
I disagree about the outcome you predict. Getting the government out of it would essentially voluntarize the redistribution of wealth. Rather than having the government rob A to give to B, it will be up to A to do it without the government as middle man. The fact that Social Security is such a popular program is proof that there is no shortage of people who are willing to see money from their own incomes used to care for the poor. Without the government involved, they would end up doing that more efficiently.

So under your plan, 70 year olds would have to go back to work until they were 90?

Ronin Truth
12-29-2015, 11:43 AM
So under your plan, 70 year olds would have to go back to work until they were 90?

Who is going to hire them all, even at the minimum "non-living" wage, without benefits?

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 11:44 AM
Who is going to hire them all, even at the minimum "non-living" wage, without benefits?

That was going to be my next question.

tod evans
12-29-2015, 12:03 PM
Too many people living too long.......

Time to repeal the laws prohibiting fun stuff.

erowe1
12-29-2015, 12:09 PM
So under your plan, 70 year olds would have to go back to work until they were 90?

Some may do that. Others would have their kids give them money directly, rather than have it go through the whole SS system first. Others may be cared for by the shear generosity of the American people. There's nothing the government does in Social Security that couldn't be done better apart from the government.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 12:17 PM
Some may do that. Others would have their kids give them money directly, rather than have it go through the whole SS system first. Others may be cared for by the shear generosity of the American people. There's nothing the government does in Social Security that couldn't be done better apart from the government.

Yeah sorry. You want to kill my mom you are going to have to come through me. Just straight pulling the plug on SS and letting old people die is insanity. Stuff like this is why normal people hate us.

erowe1
12-29-2015, 12:19 PM
Yeah sorry. You want to kill my mom you are going to have to come through me. Just straight pulling the plug on SS and letting old people die is insanity. Stuff like this is why normal people hate us.

How would I be killing your mom? Isn't taking care of your mom your job more than it is mine? And even if you did neglect that job, how do you know I wouldn't step in and help, just like I'm doing now, only without the government taking a cut?

From everything I said, where does this notion of letting anybody die come from? I never said anything like that. Before Social Security, we weren't just letting people die.

I actually think that what I'm saying is what any normal person would agree with. Putting guns to peoples' heads to make them do what they already want to do anyway doesn't accomplish anything positive.

Voluntarist
12-29-2015, 01:37 PM
xxxxx

angelatc
12-29-2015, 01:42 PM
So under your plan, 70 year olds would have to go back to work until they were 90?

I for one would be perfectly fine with that. They can earn a wage and/or live with family, which is exactly how life worked until less than 100 years ago.

idiom
12-29-2015, 01:43 PM
It would be much better if you lot just folded it into a welfare system and made it part of the normal tax.

timosman
12-29-2015, 01:46 PM
I for one would be perfectly fine with that. They can earn a wage and/or live with family, which is exactly how life worked until less than 100 years ago.

We would have to stop importing immigrants with this sudden influx of labor force. :eek:

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 01:47 PM
How would I be killing your mom? Isn't taking care of your mom your job more than it is mine?

She's paid in tens of thousands of dollars. How dare you steal that money from her just so you can declare yourself pure? Nobody is asking you to take care of her, just give her back what she's actually paid in. As for it being my job, I'd love to be able to afford to take care of someone else. At less than $20k a year I can barely keep myself in shelter.


And even if you did neglect that job,

What neglect? She's paid in tens of thousands of dollars.


how do you know I wouldn't step in and help, just like I'm doing now, only without the government taking a cut?

Nobody is asking for you to pay anything. Well, the dingbat liberals maybe, but I sure am not. If they can't live up to their implied contract return the investment and let her put it into a private fund that actually works.


From everything I said, where does this notion of letting anybody die come from?

Can't pay rent, can't pay mortgage, can't buy clothing, can't buy food. You do the math.


I never said anything like that. Before Social Security, we weren't just letting people die.

Before Social Security they weren't taking 30% of your paycheck at gunpoint. That money went into retirement accounts instead of the SS fund.


I actually think that what I'm saying is what any normal person would agree with.

Definitely not. Just abolishing SS overnight and drawing those accounts into the General Fund and letting all the dependant pensioners fend for themselves is pretty much the dead opposite of what a normal person would agree with.


Putting guns to peoples' heads to make them do what they already want to do anyway doesn't accomplish anything positive.

How about just return the money they stole from everyone and let them invest properly in private retirement accounts?

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 01:48 PM
I for one would be perfectly fine with that. They can earn a wage and/or live with family, which is exactly how life worked until less than 100 years ago.

Except the primary reason they didn't invest in a private retirement account is because the government took the money they would have done so with at gunpoint.

angelatc
12-29-2015, 01:49 PM
How do we ever get out of the cycle without at some point ceasing to pay out to people who had paid in?

You don't. The sequester deal is evidence of that. The people who voted for that budget were promised that cuts would happen, and they even included poison pills to initiate automatic cuts. All the politicians had to do was nothing... And yet here we are, spending more than we ever did.

angelatc
12-29-2015, 01:53 PM
Except the primary reason they didn't invest in a private retirement account is because the government took the money they would have done so with at gunpoint.

I used to share that sentiment and I do agree that there's an economic as well as a moral case to be made. But I don't care. Those people voted to sustain this bullshit for generations. They did their all AMerican duty and contributed their retirements to other people. Yay them.

Consider it a malinvestment. Cauterize the wound and let the economy move on.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 01:53 PM
Pragmatically, what I expect to see are revisions to the program in two primary areas to keep it going for a while longer (kicking the can down the road):
1) The retirement age will be raised. That'll increase the ratio of people paying into the system versus those cashing out of it.
2) Means-testing: if you were smart enough to take care of your own retirement, then you won't get as much out of social security

And there are other schemes coming along that could be a possibility as well:
3) Remember those Roth-IRAs that the government said would be tax-exempt when they were withdrawn after retirement. You might find that they're going to be taxed anyway.
4) There's nothing that says the government won't means-test your own IRA's, 401k's, and other pension-like financial accounts - taxing withdrawls above a certain threashold at higher rates than non-retirement income ... or even seizing the accounts when you die rather than allowing you to pass them on to your heirs.

We need to be allowed to opt out of SS and obviously we need to end it altogether, but it needs to be ended gracefully. You can't just pull the plug and tell people to fend for themselves. People will die by the tens of thousands. I probably have a more radical ending in mind than you describe here. Privatize the whole doggone thing, take all the money people have paid in and transition that lump sum into private accounts controlled by the contributor, and then government is done with it forever.

What I object to is this idea of just pulling the plug and telling 70 year old widows that they won't be getting another dime and have fun starving to death. The main reason we have so many septuagenarians who ONLY have SS income is BECAUSE the government took all that money at gunpoint that would have otherwise gone into their retirement accounts. They wouldn't even be in that fix if not for the government forcing it on them in the first place.

angelatc
12-29-2015, 01:54 PM
We would have to stop importing immigrants with this sudden influx of labor force. :eek:

The lack of benefits would have an immediate impact on immigration too.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 01:55 PM
She's paid in tens of thousands of dollars. How dare you steal that money from her just so you can declare yourself pure? Nobody is asking you to take care of her, just give her back what she's actually paid in. As for it being my job, I'd love to be able to afford to take care of someone else. At less than $20k a year I can barely keep myself in shelter.



What neglect? She's paid in tens of thousands of dollars.



Nobody is asking for you to pay anything. Well, the dingbat liberals maybe, but I sure am not. If they can't live up to their implied contract return the investment and let her put it into a private fund that actually works.



Can't pay rent, can't pay mortgage, can't buy clothing, can't buy food. You do the math.



Before Social Security they weren't taking 30% of your paycheck at gunpoint. That money went into retirement accounts instead of the SS fund.



Definitely not. Just abolishing SS overnight and drawing those accounts into the General Fund and letting all the dependant pensioners fend for themselves is pretty much the dead opposite of what a normal person would agree with.



How about just return the money they stole from everyone and let them invest properly in private retirement accounts?
They spent the money, Gunny. It is not there. So for me to be robbed to fulfill an implied contract, someone at a later date would have to be robbed to fulfill my return. That is how ponzi schemes work.

Those who promised these things ought well be in a prison cell with their palaces auctioned off piece by piece. It is impossible to make everyone whole absent the selling of federal land. Me personally, I understand that I'll never see a penny from social security.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 01:55 PM
I used to share that sentiment and I do agree that there's an economic as well as a moral case to be made. But I don't care. Those people voted to sustain this bullshit for generations. They did their all AMerican duty and contributed their retirements to other people. Yay them.

Consider it a malinvestment. Cauterize the wound and let the economy move on.

Considering that 'cauterizing the wound' means watching tens of thousands of our own parents die hungry and homeless on the streets, that's pretty much why the rest of America hates libertarians. "Throw grandma off the cliff" and all that bullshit.

angelatc
12-29-2015, 01:55 PM
What I object to is this idea of just pulling the plug and telling 70 year old widows that they won't be getting another dime and have fun starving to death. The main reason we have so many septuagenarians who ONLY have SS income is BECAUSE the government took all that money at gunpoint that would have otherwise gone into their retirement accounts. They wouldn't even be in that fix if not for the government forcing it on them in the first place.

As a politician, that's the correct approach. As a taxpayer, I recall the income tax was temporary....just to fund a war. That's what the politicians said, after all.

angelatc
12-29-2015, 01:57 PM
Considering that 'cauterizing the wound' means watching tens of thousands of our own parents die hungry and homeless on the streets, that's pretty much why the rest of America hates libertarians.

That right. Americans are selfish and greedy. WIthout government intervention, they will die in the streets. I hear that a lot.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 01:57 PM
They spent the money, Gunny. It is not there. So for me to be robbed to fulfill an implied contract, someone at a later date would have to be robbed to fulfill my return. That is how ponzi schemes work.

Those who promised these things ought well be in a prison cell with their palaces auctioned off piece by piece. It is impossible to make everyone whole absent the selling of federal land. Me personally, I understand that I'll never see a penny from social security.

So bankrupt the government, sell off the millions of acres of federal lands out west, and pay off the debt with the proceeds. Like they would any other ponzi scheme. I've got no problem with that. US Gov has MORE than enough assets to make good.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 01:58 PM
That right. Americans are selfish and greedy. WIthout government intervention, they will die in the streets. I hear that a lot.

No, it's the government intervention that would cause them to die in the streets. Without that government intervention they'd all have their own retirement accounts and be fine.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 01:59 PM
As a politician, that's the correct approach. As a taxpayer, I recall the income tax was temporary....just to fund a war. That's what the politicians said, after all.

If you are looking for someone to support the income tax, you are looking at the wrong guy. My first political act in a State Convention was to propose a resolution supporting the abolition of the 16th Amendment.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 02:01 PM
So bankrupt the government, sell off the millions of acres of federal lands out west, and pay off the debt with the proceeds. Like they would any other ponzi scheme. I've got no problem with that. US Gov has MORE than enough assets to make good.
Cool.

And part of the money ought to build a prison large enough to house every last one of them.

The way you have responded here it would seem that you blame Erowe and others for one, social security and for two, people actually having faith in the government.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 02:11 PM
Cool.

And part of the money ought to build a prison large enough to house every last one of them.

The way you have responded here it would seem that you blame Erowe and others for one, social security and for two, people actually having faith in the government.

No, what I blame Erowe for is thinking you can just pull the plug, dump everyone now dependant on SS onto the streets homeless and foodless, and think this will somehow be okay. That's not libertarian. Libertarian is honor your contracts, written and or implied. Ron Paul's plan was similar but less drastic than mine, because he recognized the implied contract with those who are currently dependant on it, and recognized that the malinvestment would leave them destitute when without SS they would have provided for themselves otherwise.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 02:18 PM
No, what I blame Erowe for is thinking you can just pull the plug, dump everyone now dependant on SS onto the streets homeless and foodless, and think this will somehow be okay. That's not libertarian. Libertarian is honor your contracts, written and or implied. Ron Paul's plan was similar but less drastic than mine, because he recognized the implied contract with those who are currently dependant on it, and recognized that the malinvestment would leave them destitute when without SS they would have provided for themselves otherwise.
I never made a contract with anyone. Usually what would happen is the matter would be civilly adjudicated. Considering the federal government rightly owns nothing, the best option (possibly) is for them to sell the palaces and monoliths and see where they end up.

Did Bernie Madoff's victims get made whole again?

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 02:21 PM
I never made a contract with anyone. Usually what would happen is the matter would be civilly adjudicated. Considering the federal government rightly owns nothing, the best option (possibly) is for them to sell the palaces and monoliths and see where they end up.

Did Bernie Madoff's victims get made whole again?

Not entirely, but Madoff was completely emptied in the attempt. You could make all the SS contributors whole and probably have enough federal land left over to pay off the debt.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 02:23 PM
I never made a contract with anyone. Usually what would happen is the matter would be civilly adjudicated. Considering the federal government rightly owns nothing, the best option (possibly) is for them to sell the palaces and monoliths and see where they end up.

Did Bernie Madoff's victims get made whole again?

Also, contracts can be implied as well as written. Implied contracts are more difficult to enforce, but there is more than overwhelming evidence that the government has promised retirement income in exchange for receiving FICA, which is enough to imply a contract.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 02:25 PM
Not entirely, but Madoff was completely emptied in the attempt. You could make all the SS contributors whole and probably have enough federal land left over to pay off the debt.
That would be fine by me on the condition that those who fraudulently siphoned away tens of millions of acres of land to pay for their crimes remain incarcerated for a lifetime and then hopefully an eternity.

As it stands now your mother is probably still struggling to make ends meet and they are going to continue to debase the currency to fulfill their criminal obligations.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 02:28 PM
That would be fine by me on the condition that those who fraudulently siphoned away tens of millions of acres of land to pay for their crimes remain incarcerated for a lifetime and then hopefully an eternity.

Not only would I not have a problem with that, I would be thrilled to see it.


As it stands now your mother is probably still struggling to make ends meet and they are going to continue to debase the currency to fulfill their criminal obligations.

True enough, but a even just pittance is better than a naught. Had she not had that money stolen from her by the government, she'd have paid it into a private retirement fund and she'd be one hell of a lot better off today.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 02:28 PM
Also, contracts can be implied as well as written. Implied contracts are more difficult to enforce, but there is more than overwhelming evidence that the government has promised retirement income in exchange for receiving FICA, which is enough to imply a contract.
See, for me, they kind of rob me of my earnings before I see them.

What kind of contract is that? I'm a little behind on what robed whores have decreed over the decades.

Zippyjuan
12-29-2015, 02:28 PM
Except the primary reason they didn't invest in a private retirement account is because the government took the money they would have done so with at gunpoint.

People who are not saving anything for retirement today aren't going to be suddenly saving for it tomorrow if you give them more money. If they are disciplined enough to save they would already be doing it. If we got rid of the SS tax what would you do with your six percent increase in income? Is that enough for your "Cadillac retirement plan" you mentioned earlier? (At $20,000 a year you would get $1200 extra per year).


Had they NOT monopolized my retirement, then I could have invested that money into a superior, private plan.

The Gold Standard
12-29-2015, 02:31 PM
So bankrupt the government, sell off the millions of acres of federal lands out west, and pay off the debt with the proceeds. Like they would any other ponzi scheme. I've got no problem with that. US Gov has MORE than enough assets to make good.

There's an idea. End the whole thing, and sell off federal assets to pay off the current recipients.

erowe1
12-29-2015, 02:31 PM
'cauterizing the wound' means watching tens of thousands of our own parents die hungry and homeless on the streets

You keep saying this. But why do you believe it?

Brian4Liberty
12-29-2015, 02:36 PM
But just one year later, Nestor was deported. Turns out, he’d been an active member of the Communist Party in the 1930s, giving the U.S. government grounds to kick him out.

When he was deported, his Social Security checks stopped. Nestor sued the U.S. government, arguing that since he had paid money into the program, he had a right to those benefits.

Ironic.

Zippyjuan
12-29-2015, 02:44 PM
Ron Paul's proposal was to "let young people opt out" while still "honoring the country's committment" and still make payments to those who do qualify for them. Opting out would mean less money coming in while more and more baby boomers are retiring and signing up for Social Security. That leads to a shortfall which would require higher taxes (or more government debt) to make up the difference. Since nearly everybody currently in the work force has earned some level of eligibility that would mean up to 50 or sixty years of paying for Social Security while at a deficit in terms of revenues for it.

erowe1
12-29-2015, 02:48 PM
Ron Paul's proposal was to "let young people opt out" while still "honoring the country's committment" and still make payments to those who do qualify for them. Opting out would mean less money coming in while more and more baby boomers are retiring and signing up for Social Security. That leads to a shortfall which would require higher taxes (or more government debt) to make up the difference. Since nearly everybody currently in the work force has earned some level of eligibility that would mean up to 50 or sixty years of paying for Social Security while at a deficit in terms of revenues for it.

That's true. In reality, there's no opting out of paying for it, until it stops getting paid out. Essentially, those young people who opt out would be taking the fall for everyone, which somebody is going to end up doing eventually one way or another.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 02:48 PM
People who are not saving anything for retirement today aren't going to be suddenly saving for it tomorrow if you give them more money. If they are disciplined enough to save they would already be doing it. If we got rid of the SS tax what would you do with your six percent increase in income? Is that enough for your "Cadillac retirement plan" you mentioned earlier? (At $20,000 a year you would get $1200 extra per year).

I'm self employed. I have to pay cash for my FICA at tax time. Last year it was $3000. I can assure you that same money would have gone into a ROTH IRA.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 02:50 PM
You keep saying this. But why do you believe it?

Maybe because I know a lot of old people who if you told them they won't be getting another dime for the rest of their lives, most of them would go homeless and die of hunger.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 02:51 PM
See, for me, they kind of rob me of my earnings before I see them.

What kind of contract is that? I'm a little behind on what robed whores have decreed over the decades.

Maybe my perspective is different because I have to pay cash money for my FICA every April.

phill4paul
12-29-2015, 02:55 PM
Ron Paul's proposal was to "let young people opt out" while still "honoring the country's committment" and still make payments to those who do qualify for them. Opting out would mean less money coming in while more and more baby boomers are retiring and signing up for Social Security. That leads to a shortfall which would require higher taxes (or more government debt) to make up the difference. Since nearly everybody currently in the work force has earned some level of eligibility that would mean up to 50 or sixty years of paying for Social Security while at a deficit in terms of revenues for it.

Ron believed the shortfall would be made up by cutting a massive Federal government, IIRC.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 02:56 PM
Ron believed the shortfall would be made up by cutting a massive Federal government, IIRC.

That's correct. He was cutting a trillion dollars in the first year.

erowe1
12-29-2015, 02:58 PM
Maybe because I know a lot of old people who if you told them they won't be getting another dime for the rest of their lives, most of them would go homeless and die of hunger.

Nobody's saying they won't get another dime for the rest of their lives, just that the dimes they get won't be gotten by involuntary taxation.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 02:58 PM
Maybe my perspective is different because I have to pay cash money for my FICA every April.
Paying it weekly or in one lump sum... what materially is the difference?

What kind of contract is being made and between whom? You can't make a contract with other people's property, for one. For two, you can't even precisely name which so called representative or president or bureaucratic official the contract is supposedly bounding.

Are you familiar with No Treason?

Sonny Tufts
12-29-2015, 03:12 PM
Just outright killing half of everyone over 70 is not the way to end it.

How about all of them? That's the plot of Christopher Buckley's satiric novel Boomsday (published in 2007). In order to stave off the financial disaster resulting from all of the Baby Boomers getting Social Security, someone proposes that the Boomers be given incentives (free Botox, no estate tax) to kill themselves at 70.

Seriously, FICA is a tax. It has nothing to do with a contract.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 03:30 PM
Paying it weekly or in one lump sum... what materially is the difference?

You said you never get to see it before it's taken out of your check. I get to store it up in my bank account with every job and write a check come tax time. Therefore I more closely identify it as mine which they are taking from me by force.


What kind of contract is being made and between whom?

Between the government and every individual: “Pay us this money and we will provide an income when you retire.”


You can't make a contract with other people's property, for one. For two, you can't even precisely name which so called representative or president or bureaucratic official the contract is supposedly bounding.

When you make a contract with Apple Inc you can't name a person either. Doesn't make the contract any less valid.


Are you familiar with No Treason?

I am very familiar with Spooner, and I utterly and completely reject him.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 03:31 PM
Nobody's saying they won't get another dime for the rest of their lives, just that the dimes they get won't be gotten by involuntary taxation.

From whence shall this magic money materialize?

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 03:32 PM
How about all of them? That's the plot of Christopher Buckley's satiric novel Boomsday (published in 2007). In order to stave off the financial disaster resulting from all of the Baby Boomers getting Social Security, someone proposes that the Boomers be given incentives (free Botox, no estate tax) to kill themselves at 70.

Seriously, FICA is a tax. It has nothing to do with a contract.

There is an implied quid pro quo. That makes it an implied contract by any common law definition.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 03:46 PM
You said you never get to see it before it's taken out of your check. I get to store it up in my bank account with every job and write a check come tax time. Therefore I more closely identify it as mine which they are taking from me by force.
Trust and believe that I understand MY money is being stolen from me. Hence why I am arguing that MY money shouldn't go to fund YOUR mother.

Your mother's money was spent long ago.

When one finances the devil's plots, they ought not be surprised when the devil takes the money and leaves.




Between the government and every individual: “Pay us this money and we will provide an income when you retire.”
The government promises a lot of things with other people's money.

It is broke. Has nothing. Therefore it cannot make that contract. Not to mention, how is a contract binding generations who haven't even been born yet legitimate? You say you are familiar with Spooner, perhaps you ought to reread it.




When you make a contract with Apple Inc you can't name a person either. Doesn't make the contract any less valid.
Equating the private corporation of Apple to the United States government is fallacious and faulty in logic.

When Apple starts claiming through the barrel of a gun that they have made a contract, for people who aren't even alive yet, to pay other people, well, then your analogy might begin to hold even a bucket of water.




I am very familiar with Spooner, and I utterly and completely reject him.
What is your issue with Vices Are Not Crimes? Or his Essay on The Trial by Jury? Or his essays on slavery?

What works of his specifically have you read to "utterly and completely" reject him?

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 03:49 PM
There is an implied quid pro quo. That makes it an implied contract by any common law definition.
And when the people who made the contract died... who precisely is the contract binding? Future generations. You are arguing that this is legitimate?

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 03:53 PM
And when the people who made the contract died... who precisely is the contract binding? Future generations. You are arguing that this is legitimate?

When Steve Jobs died, did all the EULA's people made with Apple Inc suddenly go invalid?

DamianTV
12-29-2015, 03:54 PM
And when the people who made the contract died... who precisely is the contract binding? Future generations. You are arguing that this is legitimate?

I think you are correct. I have heard a Devils Advocate argument against the people having zero Constitutional Rights because the Constitution, as a Contract, was not agreed to nor signed by those that have said rights. We can not have Constitutional Rights because if we did not sign into the agreement, we can not be a party to said contract. Again, Devils Advocate argument, not that I agree with the statement.

However, that does bring up one point. Before I was 18, I was expected, damn near forced to pay into Social Security, but Contract Law requires the individual be at least 18 years of age. Is that not in and of itself a violation of Contract Law? Or is it because my parents were duped into agreeing on my behalf?

The Gold Standard
12-29-2015, 03:56 PM
When Steve Jobs died, did all the EULA's people made with Apple Inc suddenly go invalid?

What is the ownership structure of the U.S. Federal Government Inc.? Where is it spelled out on paper, and where can I find my name?

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 03:57 PM
When Steve Jobs died, did all the EULA's people made with Apple Inc suddenly go invalid?
When did Steve Jobs establish a government?

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:04 PM
Trust and believe that I understand MY money is being stolen from me. Hence why I am arguing that MY money shouldn't go to fund YOUR mother.

Nobody is asking you to pay for my mother. I'm simply stating that if they shutter the system then they damn well need to pay back her investment.


Your mother's money was spent long ago.

Not by her.


When one finances the devil's plots, they ought not be surprised when the devil takes the money and leaves.

It might be different if such money were not taken at gunpoint.


The government promises a lot of things with other people's money.

I don't rightly give a damn what they promised or didn't promise. If they are not going to fulfill their end of the implied contract, they need to refund the investment.


It is broke. Has nothing.

fedgov has assets in the quadrillions.


Therefore it cannot make that contract.

Regardless of whether you believe they were able to make it or not, they made it.


Not to mention, how is a contract binding generations who haven't even been born yet legitimate?

You clearly drank the Spooner koolaid. My mother was alive and 18 years old when they made the contract. She is still alive today. The government which implied this contract is still operating at full tilt.


You say you are familiar with Spooner, perhaps you ought to reread it.

The first two times were enough to know that I want nothing to do with it.


Equating the private corporation of Apple to the United States government is fallacious and faulty in logic.

Because it's inconvenient to your argument?


When Apple starts claiming through the barrel of a gun that they have made a contract, for people who aren't even alive yet, to pay other people, well, then your analogy might begin to hold even a bucket of water.

Contracts don't evaporate because a CEO dies. Also, her implied contract with SS was made in 1966, and renewed every single year in April, and reconfirmed every time they sent a statement.


What is your issue with Vices Are Not Crimes? Or his Essay on The Trial by Jury? Or his essays on slavery?

He is a sloppy thinker who formulates his fundamental philosophies and blatant fallacies. Just because he arrives at a true conclusion every now and then does not make his reasoning to get there correct.


What works of his specifically have you read to "utterly and completely" reject him?

He is obsessed with the exact ideas you have shared in this thread....that contracts go away because some random member of a random branch of a random government dies.

Cabal
12-29-2015, 04:04 PM
I am very familiar with Spooner, and I utterly and completely reject him.

http://i.imgur.com/z0pkveG.gif

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:05 PM
When did Steve Jobs establish a government?

So theft and breech of contract is suddenly okay because it's a government doing the stealing? Really?

phill4paul
12-29-2015, 04:06 PM
However, that does bring up one point. Before I was 18, I was expected, damn near forced to pay into Social Security, but Contract Law requires the individual be at least 18 years of age. Is that not in and of itself a violation of Contract Law? Or is it because my parents were duped into agreeing on my behalf?

Your parents said, "Here, take this child onto your plantation where he will work as an indentured servant until such time as you decide to release him and give him an acre and tools of his trade." An thus you were made a citizen.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:06 PM
http://i.imgur.com/z0pkveG.gif

Spooner is not Yoda. Spooner is an imbecile who thinks if a piece of paper does not sprout arms and legs and take up a weapon and defend itself then it's worthless.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 04:08 PM
I think you are correct. I have heard a Devils Advocate argument against the people having zero Constitutional Rights because the Constitution, as a Contract, was not agreed to nor signed by those that have said rights. We can not have Constitutional Rights because if we did not sign into the agreement, we can not be a party to said contract. Again, Devils Advocate argument, not that I agree with the statement.

However, that does bring up one point. Before I was 18, I was expected, damn near forced to pay into Social Security, but Contract Law requires the individual be at least 18 years of age. Is that not in and of itself a violation of Contract Law? Or is it because my parents were duped into agreeing on my behalf?
I am on a piece of shit phone so forgive me for being short. Go to mises.org, type in No Treason by Lysander Spooner, and listen to the audio book starting from Section I. That'll answer the question of the legitimacy of the social contract theory. Not simply answer it, but concretely destroy it.

As to the second part, no one should be forced to fund anything. It is not a contract. Though even if it were, contracts are not set in stone. If I make a contract to pay six percent of my income until I were a set age, and then the government would take care of me endlessly afterwards, it would necessarily be illegitimate. Why? Because six percent isn't going to cover much of anything after the first year of hospice care. They have to take money from other people to fulfill this supposed contract. The victims of this ponzi scheme would be lucky to get back what they paid in. Eventually it will crash and people like me, who never even expected to see a penny from it, won't see a penny from it.

It isn't my fault that some people were duped into relying in the government to take care of them. Charity would suffice. Families would have to live within their means. Their inflationary, debt based, funny money scheme will cause a lot of pain. It already is. To perpetuate it is foolish and quite frankly evil.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:09 PM
What is the ownership structure of the U.S. Federal Government Inc.? Where is it spelled out on paper, and where can I find my name?

In the Constitution. You are a party to "We the People." That Constitution made no restrictions against people, only against the government. The people have failed to enforce it, therefore the government has become unrestricted.

Social Security was not developed under the US Constitution, it is a separate implied contract under common law. Your name can be found on your Social Security Card, and in your annual Social Security Statement.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:10 PM
I am on a piece of shit phone so forgive me for being short. Go to mises.org, type in No Treason by Lysander Spooner, and listen to the audio book starting from Section I. That'll answer the question of the legitimacy of the social contract theory. Not simply answer it, but concretely destroy it.

As to the second part, no one should be forced to fund anything. It is not a contract. Though even if it were, contracts are not set in stone. If I make a contract to pay six percent of my income until I were a set age, and then the government would take care of me endlessly afterwards, it would necessarily be illegitimate. Why? Because six percent isn't going to cover much of anything after the first year of hospice care. They have to take money from other people to fulfill this supposed contract. The victims of this ponzi scheme would be lucky to get back what they paid in. Eventually it will crash and people like me, who never even expected to see a penny from it, won't see a penny from it.

It isn't my fault that some people were duped into relying in the government to take care of them. Charity would suffice. Families would have to live within their means. Their inflationary, debt based, funny money scheme will cause a lot of pain. It already is. To perpetuate it is foolish and quite frankly evil.

Sorry, no amount of Spoonerlunacy will justify armed robbery.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:11 PM
This is another reason I reject Spooner. He seriously has you people trying to justify armed robbery.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 04:19 PM
Gunny, your arguments with regards to Social Security are sloppy and have been destroyed ad nauseam since I've been coming here. This isn't a new debate. I am on a phone or I'd sentence by sentence destroy every point you have on the matter.

I understand you feel passionately about it. You are wrong.

As to Lysander Spooner, you possibly have read Section I of No Treason twice. I'll give you that. You cannot possibly say what you've said if you were at all familiar with his works.

The man is a libertarian hero. Fuck a Grover Cleveland.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 04:20 PM
This is another reason I reject Spooner. He seriously has you people trying to justify armed robbery.
That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on RPF. Congratulations.

navy-vet
12-29-2015, 04:22 PM
Considering that 'cauterizing the wound' means watching tens of thousands of our own parents die hungry and homeless on the streets, that's pretty much why the rest of America hates libertarians. "Throw grandma off the cliff" and all that bullshit.
Exactly....

Cabal
12-29-2015, 04:22 PM
Spooner is not Yoda. Spooner is an imbecile who thinks if a piece of paper does not sprout arms and legs and take up a weapon and defend itself then it's worthless.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/87/ac/dc/87acdc498e85e3e1a09a9711f6d345d2.jpg

Stop being dangerous.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 04:25 PM
Sorry, no amount of Spoonerlunacy will justify armed robbery.
You are the one calling to perpetuate this system.

Constitutionalism and all that, right?

How ignorant does one have to be to believe anything the government has to say? ("Oh, they're going to save my money for retirement? How nice of them!") Next you'll be telling me people are entitled Obamacare because of, get this, social contract theory. Hilarious.

Cabal
12-29-2015, 04:28 PM
As to Lysander Spooner, you possibly have read Section I of No Treason twice. I'll give you that. You cannot possibly say what you've said if you were at all familiar with his works.

The man is a libertarian hero. Fuck a Grover Cleveland.


That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on RPF. Congratulations.

Despite his claims to the contrary, and based on his flagrant ignorance on the subject, I'm beginning to think he doesn't have the first clue who Spooner actually is, or what his positions have been, or what his writings promoted. Not that I'm at all surprised. It is Gunny, after all. Toddlers are more intellectually competent on the subject of liberty than he is.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:29 PM
That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on RPF. Congratulations.

I'm not the one trying to argue that it's okay to steal tens of thousands of dollars from people at gunpoint and then dump them broke and homeless on the street just because the government did it.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:31 PM
Gunny, your arguments with regards to Social Security are sloppy and have been destroyed ad nauseam since I've been coming here. This isn't a new debate. I am on a phone or I'd sentence by sentence destroy every point you have on the matter.

I understand you feel passionately about it. You are wrong.

As to Lysander Spooner, you possibly have read Section I of No Treason twice. I'll give you that. You cannot possibly say what you've said if you were at all familiar with his works.

The man is a libertarian hero. Fuck a Grover Cleveland.

I have never claimed to be a libertarian, precisely because of freakishly bizarre mental gymnastics like this one. Armed robbery and fraud do not suddenly become okay just because a government does it. If a government does wrong, then they need to make recompense just like if a person or a company does wrong.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:32 PM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/87/ac/dc/87acdc498e85e3e1a09a9711f6d345d2.jpg

Stop being dangerous.

I'm not the one trying to justify armed robbery without recompense just because a government did it. If you are looking for the dangerous one, I suggest you check out a mirror.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:35 PM
You are the one calling to perpetuate this system.

Uh.. no, I'm not. I'm the one with a plan to end SS that will actually work without committing freaking genocide in the process.


Constitutionalism and all that, right?

How ignorant does one have to be to believe anything the government has to say? ("Oh, they're going to save my money for retirement? How nice of them!") Next you'll be telling me people are entitled Obamacare because of, get this, social contract theory. Hilarious.

It doesn't matter whether someone believes the government or not, they took the money at gunpoint with a promise of a quid pro quo. That makes it an implied contract.

When people do wrong, we demand justice and recompense.

When a company does wrong we demand justice and recompense.

When the government does wrong, we demand "fuck you and die early?" Seriously???

Yeah, if this is the kind of philosophy that Spooner produces, then I now reject his nonsense even more strongly than I did before.

phill4paul
12-29-2015, 04:35 PM
I have never claimed to be a libertarian, precisely because of freakishly bizarre mental gymnastics like this one. Armed robbery and fraud do not suddenly become okay just because a government does it. If a government does wrong, then they need to make recompense just like if a person or a company does wrong.

And if a government, a person or a company is destitute should they, through force, take the fruits of others labor to recompense those they can not?

Cabal
12-29-2015, 04:35 PM
I'm not the one trying to justify armed robbery without recompense just because a government did it. If you are looking for the dangerous one, I suggest you check out a mirror.

Not even god knows what you're talking about right now.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 04:37 PM
I have never claimed to be a libertarian, precisely because of freakishly bizarre mental gymnastics like this one. Armed robbery and fraud do not suddenly become okay just because a government does it. If a government does wrong, then they need to make recompense just like if a person or a company does wrong.
This is very ironic considering you advocate for me to be robbed by the federal government or the currency I am forced to use be fraudulently debased so that they can fulfill pie in the sky promises THEY made. Now who constitutes government?

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:39 PM
And if a government, a person or a company is destitute should they, through force, take the fruits of others labor to recompense those they can not?

No. The fedgov is worth quadrillions in assets.

Anybody else does this and they are forced into liquidation to pay their debt.

A person makes an implied contract and violates it and their assets get sold off to make it good.

A company makes an implied contract and violates it and their assets get sold off to make it good.

A government makes an implied contract and violates it and "fuck you, suffer." Because.....Spooner?

yeah, no.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:39 PM
Not even god knows what you're talking about right now.

Pretty sure I'm the one being logical here.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:40 PM
This is very ironic considering you advocate for me to be robbed by the federal government or the currency I am forced to use be fraudulently debased so that they can fulfill pie in the sky promises THEY made. Now who constitutes government?

Okay. Give me a number. I've already told you, what 5 times that nobody is trying to make you pay for retired people?

What is your magic number, 20? 70?

I can copy/paste like a champ. So give me the number of times I have to repeat it before you decide to read it.

phill4paul
12-29-2015, 04:43 PM
No. The fedgov is worth quadrillions in assets.

Anybody else does this and they are forced into liquidation to pay their debt.

A person makes an implied contract and violates it and their assets get sold off to make it good.

A company makes an implied contract and violates it and their assets get sold off to make it good.

A government makes an implied contract and violates it and "fuck you, suffer." Because.....Spooner?

yeah, no.

Very well. Then you agree that the government, through force, should not extract the fruits of others labor to recompense those they owe.

You advocate an liquidation of assets to fulfill these debts. On this, I too can agree.

How to avoid one, while ensuring the other?

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 04:44 PM
No. The fedgov is worth quadrillions in assets.

Anybody else does this and they are forced into liquidation to pay their debt.

A person makes an implied contract and violates it and their assets get sold off to make it good.

A company makes an implied contract and violates it and their assets get sold off to make it good.

A government makes an implied contract and violates it and "fuck you, suffer." Because.....Spooner?

yeah, no.
The government does not have 'quadrillions' of dollars in assets. That's fucking retarded.

Who is the government? The president? He's worth quadrillions? The senators? It's their quadrillions? Maybe the robed whores who've allowed them to siphon away so much land. It's their quadrillion dollars, right?

You are worse than talking to an Obamabot. I figured everyone here understood that the government can have only what it takes. It does not produce shit. Likewise, it does not own shit. Them selling the palaces they robbed to have built would be an amicable solution to fulfilling empty promises THEY made. But don't act like those goddamn palaces are rightfully their's or that they own a goddamn thing.

Whoever your mom signed a contract with should be garnished until she is made whole. Oh wait. She didn't sign a contract with anybody. Well gee fucking whiz.

Henry Rogue
12-29-2015, 04:47 PM
Turns out, he’d been an active member of the Communist Party in the 1930s,*


Oh, the irony.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 04:49 PM
Okay. Give me a number. I've already told you, what 5 times that nobody is trying to make you pay for retired people?

What is your magic number, 20? 70?

I can copy/paste like a champ. So give me the number of times I have to repeat it before you decide to read it.
If THEY sell one parcel of land to pay for their criminal deeds, I would have still been wronged. Got it?

Me being an agreeable guy, so long as they spend eternity in a cage, we'll have to write off the evil that is them stealing land, sitting on it, committing crimes, then using the stolen land as collateral against their fraud, theft, and destruction.

You act like they created it. Or like them selling national parks is justice.

Cabal
12-29-2015, 04:50 PM
Pretty sure I'm the one being logical here.

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/yeah_sure_seinfeld.gif

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:51 PM
Very well. Then you agree that the government, through force, should not extract the fruits of others labor to recompense those they owe.

Obviously not. And I never have. I said so explicitly from the start.


You advocate an liquidation of assets to fulfill these debts. On this, I too can agree.

Great!


How to avoid one, while ensuring the other?

Better: Send the United States to bankruptcy court?

Best: Elect a Congress and a President who aren't idiots?

Worst: Wait for SS to insolvent and then ply the Supreme Court to force asset liquidation?

If we are arguing from pragmatism, then you have to know that nobody is going to just dump 56 million social security recipients onto the streets overnight.

As to which plan to end SS is more likely to be enacted, as a purely practical matter, I'm pretty sure that's mine too.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 04:53 PM
Oh, the irony.
No wonder he fought so hard for 'his' social security.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:55 PM
The government does not have 'quadrillions' of dollars in assets. That's fucking retarded.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg
It's pretty retarded allright, but not for the reason you presume.


Who is the government? The president? He's worth quadrillions? The senators? It's their quadrillions? Maybe the robed whores who've allowed them to siphon away so much land. It's their quadrillion dollars, right?

Land that is already in the sole possession of the US Federal government.


You are worse than talking to an Obamabot.

LMAO you are really helping to form my opinion about the kinds of philosophy that is promoted by Spooner....


I figured everyone here understood that the government can have only what it takes. It does not produce shit. Likewise, it does not own shit. Them selling the palaces they robbed to have built would be an amicable solution to fulfilling empty promises THEY made. But don't act like those goddamn palaces are rightfully their's or that they own a goddamn thing.

Whoever your mom signed a contract with should be garnished until she is made whole. Oh wait. She didn't sign a contract with anybody. Well gee fucking whiz.

SMDH

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 04:59 PM
If THEY sell one parcel of land to pay for their criminal deeds, I would have still been wronged. Got it?

LOL wow talk about mental gymnastics. Now you are arguing........what? The US should keep federal lands? Give them to.......who? Random dead people?


Me being an agreeable guy,

You aren't exactly demonstrating this trait.


so long as they spend eternity in a cage, we'll have to write off the evil that is them stealing land, sitting on it, committing crimes, then using the stolen land as collateral against their fraud, theft, and destruction.

You act like they created it. Or like them selling national parks is justice.

So you think they should....what, sell it off and burn the money rather than paying back the people they've wronged?

Find a random Bernie Sanders supporter and just give it all to her?

Dr.3D
12-29-2015, 05:07 PM
Wow, sounds like somebody hates old people.

phill4paul
12-29-2015, 05:15 PM
Obviously not. And I never have. I said so explicitly from the start.



Great!



Better: Send the United States to bankruptcy court?

Best: Elect a Congress and a President who aren't idiots?

Worst: Wait for SS to insolvent and then ply the Supreme Court to force asset liquidation?

If we are arguing from pragmatism, then you have to know that nobody is going to just dump 56 million social security recipients onto the streets overnight.

As to which plan to end SS is more likely to be enacted, as a purely practical matter, I'm pretty sure that's mine too.

Looks like a great plan..on paper.

Better: Whose bankruptcy court?
Best: I think it would take generations of re-education.
Worst: SCOTUS would do no such thing, IMHO.

Nothing, short of revolution or peaceful seccession is gonna right this boat, IMHO.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 05:20 PM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg
It's pretty retarded allright, but not for the reason you presume.



Land that is already in the sole possession of the US Federal government.



LMAO you are really helping to form my opinion about the kinds of philosophy that is promoted by Spooner....



SMDH
I always took you for a state's rights kind of guy. Maybe even a Constitutionalist. So where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to own this land? Is ninety percent of Nevada a barracks?

I could stomach your writings when they were at least Constitutionally grounded. I would disagree and simply write it off that you were a Constitulationalist.

Sell Nevada, huh? That'll fund Social Security. It's not even that you are simply offering it. You are saying that the federal government rightfully owns that land. That is an incredible position to take. One of Teddy Roosevelt's favorites. Hell, didn't Obama just extend so.e National Parks? He can just sell that land to pay for it. It's his, right?

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 05:21 PM
Looks like a great plan..on paper.

Best: Whose bankruptcy court?
Best: I think it would take generations of re-education.
Worst: SCOTUS would do no such thing, IMHO.

In addition to actually being more principled, any of the 3 are far, far more likely to actually happen in reality than just one day someone pulls a switch and shuts down SS. If the three options I offered are politically difficult, then what about the option being offered up by the rest of this thread? That's just blatantly never going to happen, period. At least one of my options might have a snowball's chance.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 05:22 PM
Wow, sounds like somebody hates old people.
Me?

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 05:26 PM
I always took you for a state's rights kind of guy. Maybe even a Constitutionalist. So where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to own this land? Is ninety percent of Nevada a barracks?

I could stomach your writings when they were at least Constitutionally grounded. I would disagree and simply write it off that you were a Constitulationalist.

Sell Nevada, huh? That'll fund Social Security. It's not even that you are simply offering it. You are saying that the federal government rightfully owns that land. That is an incredible position to take. One of Teddy Roosevelt's favorites. Hell, didn't Obama just extend so.e National Parks? He can just sell that land to pay for it. It's his, right?

It doesn't matter that they have no permission to own it, they DO own it, and possession in 9/10th of the law. You would rather they just walk away from it, leave it as unclaimed land that now nobody can own because there is no deed or deed process, and renege on all their debts?

I am a strict Constitutionalist. The Constitution provides for courts under common law. Common law dictates ownership and transfer of property, and the disposition of written and implied contracts. You just prefer Spooner over the Constitution.

What you do not understand, is I am taking the far, far more principled position. I am not advocating that people who were robbed at gunpoint just roll over and die because we don't like the idea of a government paying its debts.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 05:27 PM
Me?

Kinda looks that way to me too.

If someone had defrauded you, you'd be all for him going bankrupt and paying you what you owe, but because it's old people fuck em, let em die.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 05:31 PM
It doesn't matter that they have no permission to own it, they DO own it, and possession in 9/10th of the law. You would rather they just walk away from it, leave it as unclaimed land that now nobody can own because there is no deed or deed process, and renege on all their debts?

I am a strict Constitutionalist. The Constitution provides for courts under common law. Common law dictates ownership and transfer of property, and the disposition of written and implied contracts. You just prefer Spooner over the Constitution.

What you do not understand, is I am taking the far, far more principled position. I am not advocating that people who were robbed at gunpoint just roll over and die because we don't like the idea of a government paying its debts.
So it doesn't matter that it is unconstitutional, the ends justify the means. Abraham Lincoln felt similarly.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 05:32 PM
So it doesn't matter that it is unconstitutional, the ends justify the means. Abraham Lincoln felt similarly.

The Constitution provides for courts which are required to enforce contracts. I am being completely Constitutional. You just don't like it.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 05:34 PM
Frankly, I am astonished at all of this hostility towards the idea of "end SS gently so we don't kill people" vs "rip it away and let people survive or die."

I mean, if this is what "libertarian" means then no wonder everyone hates it. I'm not about to kill people just so I can feel a smug sense of self satisfaction. :(

Dr.3D
12-29-2015, 05:37 PM
Frankly, I am astonished at all of this hostility towards the idea of "end SS gently so we don't kill people" vs "rip it away and let people survive or die."

I mean, if this is what "libertarian" means then no wonder everyone hates it. I'm not about to kill people just so I can feel a smug sense of self satisfaction. :(
You must spread some reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 05:38 PM
Kinda looks that way to me too.

If someone had defrauded you, you'd be all for him going bankrupt and paying you what you owe, but because it's old people fuck em, let em die.
I am wholly in support of them going bankrupt. Like if they simply quit robbing people they would. For THEM to sell land that is not their's would be included in this robbery. It isn't giving them a pass on their robberies, it is objecting to rectifying past robberies with current robberies or future robberies.

Unaccountable and unidentifiable thieves are unaccountable and unidentifiable? Well. No shit. I feel bad for anyone who thought the government was going to take care of them. My mother is in the same boat. No where in that is suggesting people in the streets dying. It's the same nonsense when one suggests cutting SNAP. It's some mighty strong progressive Kool Aid, but let's be honest.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 05:38 PM
Dupe

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 05:45 PM
The Constitution provides for courts which are required to enforce contracts. I am being completely Constitutional. You just don't like it.
You just said in 113 that, "It doesn't matter [the federal government does not] have permission [under the Constitution to own the land they currently possess]," and justify it by "possession is nine-tenths of the law."

Nevermind it violates the Constitution and violates rights, they said they own it so they own it.

DamianTV
12-29-2015, 05:56 PM
Frankly, I am astonished at all of this hostility towards the idea of "end SS gently so we don't kill people" vs "rip it away and let people survive or die."

I mean, if this is what "libertarian" means then no wonder everyone hates it. I'm not about to kill people just so I can feel a smug sense of self satisfaction. :(

Agreed. There needs to be a Transitional period. Same thing as with any sort of money system transition. Even to the Euro, a lot of countries need that Transitional period. Same thing applies to a voluntary Social(ist In)Security, without violence.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 05:57 PM
You just said in 113 that, "It doesn't matter [the federal government does not] have permission [under the Constitution to own the land they currently possess]," and justify it by "possession is nine-tenths of the law."

Nevermind it violates the Constitution and violates rights, they said they own it so they own it.

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2 The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 06:04 PM
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2 The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
So it was Congress who took that land?

What are your views on the Necessary and Proper Clause?

Might it become necessary and proper to sell ninety percent of Nevada to pay for past promises?

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 06:04 PM
I am wholly in support of them going bankrupt. Like if they simply quit robbing people they would. For THEM to sell land that is not their's would be included in this robbery. It isn't giving them a pass on their robberies, it is objecting to rectifying past robberies with current robberies or future robberies.

Unaccountable and unidentifiable thieves are unaccountable and unidentifiable? Well. No shit. I feel bad for anyone who thought the government was going to take care of them. My mother is in the same boat. No where in that is suggesting people in the streets dying. It's the same nonsense when one suggests cutting SNAP. It's some mighty strong progressive Kool Aid, but let's be honest.

Because you are not really a fan of the Constitution, I tried explaining the common law principle. Now I have posted the article section and clause of the US Constitution empowering Congress to own and sell of such lands.

If you put poor old people on the street with no money, they WILL die. This is not fantasy island, this is reality.

You don't have to have believed that the government would fulfill it's promise to have had the money taken from you at gunpoint with an implied quid pro quo, sufficing as an implied contract, enforceable under the common law courts of the United States.

If you demand that the United States NOT recompense the victims of their crimes, then that is exactly what you are doing -- giving them a pass.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 06:07 PM
So it was Congress who took that land?

What are your views on the Necessary and Proper Clause?

Nobody 'took' the land, it started off as federal property when it became a US territory. Then the federal government doled out whatever land they didn't want to the people and the States. The properties they retain (with I am sure a few exceptions...but none I know of off the top of my head) were NEVER someone's property.

The Necessary and Proper Clause only authorizes Congress to do what is necessary and proper to carry out the 19 enumerated powers which the clause refers to.

erowe1
12-29-2015, 06:16 PM
From whence shall this magic money materialize?

It's not magic money. It will come from people giving it voluntarily.

You keep talking about how unpopular ending SS is with normal people. Well all these people who want so badly to have the government take money from them and redistribute it to others would still want just as badly to help those same others with that money after the government stopped stealing it.

I never understand the mindset of people who find the need to depend on private charity more offensive than the need to depend on government redistribution of wealth.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 06:17 PM
Because you are not really a fan of the Constitution, I tried explaining the common law principle. Now I have posted the article section and clause of the US Constitution empowering Congress to own and sell of such lands.

If you put poor old people on the street with no money, they WILL die. This is not fantasy island, this is reality.

You don't have to have believed that the government would fulfill it's promise to have had the money taken from you at gunpoint with an implied quid pro quo, sufficing as an implied contract, enforceable under the common law courts of the United States.

If you demand that the United States NOT recompense the victims of their crimes, then that is exactly what you are doing -- giving them a pass.
The states are what? Subservient to the federal government? And collectivism is what? Tolerable under God's Law? But because you have bought into the propaganda that millions will be starving, dying in the streets, I am incorrect?

It is ridiculous. I seem to recall you being the one (aside from Matt Collins) who'd offer logical fallacies whenever the chance arose. Your exaggerations and misrepresentations are of what brand, specifically? Your calls of the possible millions starving is what, precisely? Your comparison of Apple to the government, and you know as well as I do why that is a sophistic comparison, is what exactly?

If your arguments had merit they'd do well to have someone better rounded than you conveying them. You are a constitutionalist when it's convenient.

I liked the excerpt. Be sure to provide me the commerce clause the next debate there is on cannabis.

angelatc
12-29-2015, 06:21 PM
Seriously, FICA is a tax. It has nothing to do with a contract.

Social contract - liberal buzz word.

angelatc
12-29-2015, 06:25 PM
Agreed. There needs to be a Transitional period. Same thing as with any sort of money system transition. Even to the Euro, a lot of countries need that Transitional period. Same thing applies to a voluntary Social(ist In)Security, without violence.

Leave it up to the states. My parents are about the same age as Gunny's. My Dad laid carpet. My Mom did clerical work. They managed to put money away for retirement despite the SS takings.

Old people have more money than young people. SS is just rich people robbing poor people.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 06:27 PM
The states are what? Subservient to the federal government? And collectivism is what? Tolerable under God's Law? But because you have bought into the propaganda that millions will be starving, dying in the streets, I am incorrect?

It is ridiculous. I seem to recall you being the one (aside from Matt Collins) who'd offer logical fallacies whenever the chance arose. Your exaggerations and misrepresentations are of what brand, specifically? Your calls of the possible millions starving is what, precisely? Your comparison of Apple to the government, and you know as well as I do why that is a sophistic comparison, is what exactly?

If your arguments had merit they'd do well to have someone better rounded than you conveying them. You are a constitutionalist when it's convenient.

I liked the excerpt. Be sure to provide me the commerce clause the next debate there is on cannabis.

I am a Constitutionalist always, even when it's inconvenient to you. And you have a very poor memory. I have occasionally analyzed fallacious arguments, but I don't just pin fallacies.

Comparing one organization bound by contract law to another organization bound by contract law is not sophistic.

I am quite well rounded, you just find yourself in disagreement this time and you don't like it because I am supporting everything I say.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 06:27 PM
Social contract - liberal buzz word.

The only person who has uttered "social contract" here, is you.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 06:29 PM
It's not magic money. It will come from people giving it voluntarily.

Have you met America?


You keep talking about how unpopular ending SS is with normal people. Well all these people who want so badly to have the government take money from them and redistribute it to others would still want just as badly to help those same others with that money after the government stopped stealing it.

I never understand the mindset of people who find the need to depend on private charity more offensive than the need to depend on government redistribution of wealth.

I will never understand the mindset of people who are offended by someone who doesn't want to kill people.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 06:30 PM
Leave it up to the states. My parents are about the same age as Gunny's. My Dad laid carpet. My Mom did clerical work. They managed to put money away for retirement despite the SS takings.

Old people have more money than young people. SS is just rich people robbing poor people.

Good for them. What about the 15-odd million people with no savings, no family, and no net worth?

angelatc
12-29-2015, 06:33 PM
Good for them. What about the 15-odd million people with no savings, no family, and no net worth?

Maybe they should have thought about that 50 years ago.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 06:34 PM
I am a Constitutionalist always, even when it's inconvenient to you. And you have a very poor memory. I have occasionally analyzed fallacious arguments, but I don't just pin fallacies.

Comparing one organization bound by contract law to another organization bound by contract law is not sophistic.

I am quite well rounded, you just find yourself in disagreement this time and you don't like it because I am supporting everything I say.
If by supporting you mean offering a Wilsonian opinion on the matter then yes, you have supported your claim marvelously.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 06:34 PM
Maybe they should have thought about that 50 years ago.

when fedgov was taking all of their disposable income at gunpoint? I'm sure they did.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 06:37 PM
If by supporting you mean offering a Wilsonian opinion on the matter then yes, you have supported your claim marvelously.

http://glenbradley.net/imghost/2015_11NOV/opinionman.jpg

an opinion that happens to be wrong, and which I do not share.

Calling me "Woodrow Wilson" because you do not like my argument doesn't seem very logical to me.

The Gold Standard
12-29-2015, 06:39 PM
In the Constitution. You are a party to "We the People." That Constitution made no restrictions against people, only against the government. The people have failed to enforce it, therefore the government has become unrestricted.

Social Security was not developed under the US Constitution, it is a separate implied contract under common law. Your name can be found on your Social Security Card, and in your annual Social Security Statement.

Well, if I'm obligated to fund other people's retirement, I must be part owner of this company, and named in this Constitution you speak of. Look, equating this with real life contracts by private parties is absurd. I agree with you that it's terrible so many people have to live on stolen money because they were robbed when they were younger. But that doesn't obligate me to pay their way.

I don't have an easy answer. The politicians responsible over the years, starting with Roosevelt's heirs, should be paying back this money. That's what I would do. I bet the combined wealth of the last 80 years worth of presidents and Congress would be close enough to pay back current dependents. If not, sell the White House for all I give a fuck. The thing is, the more I think about, even selling government land and assets isn't the proper answer, because they don't legitimately own anything. So, my best answer is to make the politicians pay everything they have, and if that doesn't cover it, that's unfortunate.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 06:39 PM
Have you met America?

I will never understand the mindset of people who are offended by someone who doesn't want to kill people.
Is government not made up of Americans? Or is THEIR charity on a higher level than average Americans?

Dr.3D
12-29-2015, 06:39 PM
when fedgov was taking all of their disposable income at gunpoint? I'm sure they did.
I'm sure they were crossing their fingers that the government would keep it's end of the bargain it made when taking that money too.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 06:40 PM
Have you met America?

I will never understand the mindset of people who are offended by someone who doesn't want to kill people.
Is government not made up of Americans? Or is THEIR charity on a higher level than average Americans?

euphemia
12-29-2015, 06:45 PM
I don't think we can say for certain that thousands of senior citizens would die homeless in the streets. Many of them have assets worth a lot of money. What I do think is that people who call themselves poor should not be forcing everyone else to pay for their American dream. Sell one of the houses. Share spaces with families and friends. Rent a room to a student. There are a lot of options out there for people who are willing to be creative and make their money work a little better.

I am sick of working so hard and having people demand a share of what I earn. I am just worn out with looking at how little we have saved, and knowing my body is not going to hold out to do the kind of work I'm doing and keep working until I'm 80. We have lived investment poor most of our lives, and the ingratitude of people who live off my dime just frosts me.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 06:46 PM
Well, if I'm obligated to fund other people's retirement,

Nobody said that you are obligated to fund anybody's retirement, least of all me. That's just what kc was trying to wrongfully accuse me of doing when he failed to produce a cogent argument as to why we should kill people rather than end it gently.


I must be part owner of this company,

That you actually are.


and named in this Constitution you speak of.

That you are also. Under the corporate entity known as "We the People"


Look, equating this with real life contracts by private parties is absurd.

Common law knows no distinction between types of parties to a contract. They may be individuals, groups, companies, corporations, political jurisdictions, states, or nations. Common law takes whatever entity and treats it as a 'party.'


I agree with you that it's terrible so many people have to live on stolen money because they were robbed when they were younger. But that doesn't obligate me to pay their way.

Who has asked you to pay a dime? My plan is to give you back all the money that you've already paid.


I don't have an easy answer. The politicians responsible over the years, starting with Roosevelt's heirs, should be paying back this money. That's what I would do. I bet the combined wealth of the last 80 years worth of presidents and Congress would be close enough to pay back current dependents. If not, sell the White House for all I give a fuck. The thing is, the more I think about, even selling government land and assets isn't the proper answer, because they don't legitimately own anything.

Per the US Constitution, they do.


So, my best answer is to make the politicians pay everything they have, and if that doesn't cover it, that's unfortunate.

The United States holds quadrillions of dollars worth of federal lands that were their official property from the moment the region become a possession, then a territory, and eventually a State.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 06:47 PM
Is government not made up of Americans? Or is THEIR charity on a higher level than average Americans?

Whether or not a random individual is charitable is irrelevant. The US Government stole that money from Americans, and the US Government should give it back.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 06:48 PM
I'm sure they were crossing their fingers that the government would keep it's end of the bargain it made when taking that money too.

LOL I was actually thinking that...

Dr.3D
12-29-2015, 06:51 PM
LOL I was actually thinking that...
What is suppose to happen when an entity embezzles money that was entrusted to it?

Edit:
I hadn't seen your post 145
you already answered my question.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 06:55 PM
I don't think we can say for certainty that thousands of senior citizens would die homeless in the streets. Many of them have assets worth a lot of money.

and an enormous number of them do not. An enormous number of them currently subsist with no families, only SS income, no property, paying rent and eating a subsistence diet.


What I do think is that people who call themselves poor should not be forcing everyone else to pay for their American dream.

Which is why I'm saying every penny you paid in needs paid back to you. My plan is the dead opposite of taking money from some people to pay for other people.


Sell one of the houses.

You may have lived a privileged life, but a whole stinkin lot of people have never owned a home in their life.


Share spaces with families and friends.

I am glad you are so fortunate. A whole stinkin lot of people do not have family, or are completely estranged from any family they have.


Rent a room to a student. There are a lot of options out there for people who are willing to be creative and make their money work a little better.

They shouldn't have to be creative enough to dig food out of dumpsters when the US Gov has taken tens of thousands of dollars from them to enrich fat cat millionaires.


I am sick of working so hard and having people demand a share of what I earn.

Then you should be totally behind my plan, which is to pay everyone back every penny they paid in, and transfer their retirement accounts to private providers, thus ending Social Security.


I am just worn out with looking at how little we have saved, and knowing my body is not going to hold out to do the kind of work I'm doing and keep working until I'm 80.

Ask Angela, rather than pay back the money they stole, she wants people now 70 without assets to work until they are 90.


We have lived investment poor most of our lives, and the ingratitude of people who live off my dime just frosts me.

So what's wrong with giving you all your dimes back?

erowe1
12-29-2015, 06:57 PM
I will never understand the mindset of people who are offended by someone who doesn't want to kill people.

Letting people help each other voluntarily rather than using lethal force to make them do it is the exact opposite of killing people.

The Gold Standard
12-29-2015, 06:59 PM
Nobody said that you are obligated to fund anybody's retirement, least of all me. That's just what kc was trying to wrongfully accuse me of doing when he failed to produce a cogent argument as to why we should kill people rather than end it gently.

Look, for me this is all a philosophical argument anyway, because anyone that wanted to end SS, even with a transition, would by far be better than anyone else up for major office. But, if they are going to continue to receive money, it is either going to come from the people responsible directly, which is fine, people not responsible directly, which is outright robbery, or printed/borrowed, which is robbed from everyone.



That you actually are.

That you are also. Under the corporate entity known as "We the People"


I've never expressed, either written or verbally, the desire to be part of this entity.



Common law knows no distinction between types of parties to a contract. They may be individuals, groups, companies, corporations, political jurisdictions, states, or nations. Common law takes whatever entity and treats it as a 'party.'


Maybe so. But it can't obligate people that are not member to any of these parties.



Who has asked you to pay a dime? My plan is to give you back all the money that you've already paid.


That's great. Provided the money I get back isn't going to be ravaged by the printing press to keep paying out benefits to others.



Per the US Constitution, they do.


Per property rights, they don't.



The United States holds quadrillions of dollars worth of federal lands that were their official property from the moment the region become a possession, then a territory, and eventually a State.

I can claim those lands as mine as legitimately as they can claim them as theirs. Moreso if I go and start improving them and putting them to use.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 07:02 PM
Letting people help each other voluntarily rather than using lethal force to make them do it is the exact opposite of killing people.

I'm the one trying to end the lethal force by giving everyone back the money fedgov stole, and letting them do what they want with it.

If you take 56 million people off of SS overnight, a whole stinkin bunch of them are going to die. Even if it's only 1% that's still 560,000 people. More likely it will be closer to 5%, or 2.8 million. Dead. If you can't see that then you are living in fantasyland.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 07:13 PM
Look, for me this is all a philosophical argument anyway, because anyone that wanted to end SS, even with a transition, would by far be better than anyone else up for major office. But, if they are going to continue to receive money,

What is it with you people "if they are going to continue to receive money," is that what they tell you to say in anarchy-school? Because pretty much ALL of you keep throwing that in my face and I've not suggested it.

What I want to do is liquidate SS, liquidate federal holdings, pay back all the money they stole, and walk away.


it is either going to come from the people responsible directly, which is fine, people not responsible directly, which is outright robbery, or printed/borrowed, which is robbed from everyone.

Or from the liquidation of hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of assets that were never stolen from anyone.


I've never expressed, either written or verbally, the desire to be part of this entity.

As the case may be, no place on Earth has true anarchy, you will either be a party to one government or another.


Maybe so. But it can't obligate people that are not member to any of these parties.

If you are a citizen of the United States, then you are a party to the Constitution, whether you want to be or not.


That's great. Provided the money I get back isn't going to be ravaged by the printing press to keep paying out benefits to others.

I want to end the Fed too, but that's another matter. These assets to not come from the printing press, so they will not inflate the monetary base.


Per property rights, they don't.

So who do you think they belong to, a random Sioux warrior now dead for more than 200 years?


I can claim those lands as mine as legitimately as they can claim them as theirs.

You cannot just up and take a thing that is in the active possession of another. BLM is evil, but you can't say they aren't actively maintaining the land.


Moreso if I go and start improving them and putting them to use.

That was a federal homesteading law. It was narrowly applied and is no longer open to claim stakers. Again, you can't just take property that is in the active possession of another entity, whether you believe the US government is legitimate or not, it exists, it is active, and it is maintaining possession of said property. I can't just take my neighbor's land because I don't think his house is an improvement.

euphemia
12-29-2015, 07:41 PM
I'm the one trying to end the lethal force by giving everyone back the money fedgov stole, and letting them do what they want with it.

If you take 56 million people off of SS overnight, a whole stinkin bunch of them are going to die. Even if it's only 1% that's still 560,000 people. More likely it will be closer to 5%, or 2.8 million. Dead. If you can't see that then you are living in fantasyland.

I don't think that is true. I don't think we can ever say someone dies because of lack of government intervention. A lot of people die because of it. I see hundreds of seniors every day, and I can't say any of them are starving. Quite the opposite. I see many of them who have eaten themselves into oblivion, and weigh so much they can't walk. A lot of them travel quite a bit, which is why I see them, and they are not ashamed to say they have both summer and winter homes.

GunnyFreedom
12-29-2015, 07:53 PM
I don't think that is true. I don't think we can ever say someone dies because of lack of government intervention. A lot of people die because of it.

Correct. In the lack of government intervention, these people would not have had tens of thousands of dollars stolen from them, they would not have anticipated a retirement income in exchange for this theft, they would have prepared, and they would have been fine. It is entirely due to government intervention that they would be endangered.


I see hundreds of seniors every day, and I can't say any of them are starving. Quite the opposite. I see many of them who have eaten themselves into oblivion, and weigh so much they can't walk. A lot of them travel quite a bit, which is why I see them, and they are not ashamed to say they have both summer and winter homes.
I have visited 70 and 80 year olds in the projects, alone and sad with little to eat. I have seen them with my own eyes. I have helped where I can, but I, too, am poor.

Origanalist
12-29-2015, 08:13 PM
I don't think that is true. I don't think we can ever say someone dies because of lack of government intervention. A lot of people die because of it. I see hundreds of seniors every day, and I can't say any of them are starving. Quite the opposite. I see many of them who have eaten themselves into oblivion, and weigh so much they can't walk. A lot of them travel quite a bit, which is why I see them, and they are not ashamed to say they have both summer and winter homes.

You see hundreds every day?

Dr.3D
12-29-2015, 08:39 PM
You see hundreds every day?
Must work on a cruise ship or for an airline ;)

Danke
12-29-2015, 08:39 PM
I don't think that is true. I don't think we can ever say someone dies because of lack of government intervention. A lot of people die because of it. I see hundreds of seniors every day, and I can't say any of them are starving. Quite the opposite. I see many of them who have eaten themselves into oblivion, and weigh so much they can't walk. A lot of them travel quite a bit, which is why I see them, and they are not ashamed to say they have both summer and winter homes.

Ya, I think the next step will be means testing.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 09:08 PM
I'm the one trying to end the lethal force by giving everyone back the money fedgov stole, and letting them do what they want with it.

If you take 56 million people off of SS overnight, a whole stinkin bunch of them are going to die. Even if it's only 1% that's still 560,000 people. More likely it will be closer to 5%, or 2.8 million. Dead. If you can't see that then you are living in fantasyland.
If you cut SNAP, people are going to starve. Even if it's just one percent, that's 500,000 people.

Ought the federal land be used to pay reparations for countries this government has destroyed?

Would you argue it Constitutionally acceptable to sell Yosemite to pay widows in Iraq?

You offer that the federal government owns it, Constitutionally so, so when the victims of an errant drone strike, or entire military occupation sue, that land is a legitimate payment?

tod evans
12-29-2015, 09:23 PM
Government isn't going to fix government.

As far as government employees and dependants go government is functioning exactly as it's supposed to.

BrooklynZoo
12-29-2015, 09:24 PM
I always took you for a state's rights kind of guy. Maybe even a Constitutionalist. So where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to own this land? Is ninety percent of Nevada a barracks?

Actually...

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.

Anti Federalist
12-29-2015, 09:25 PM
Considering that 'cauterizing the wound' means watching tens of thousands of our own parents die hungry and homeless on the streets, that's pretty much why the rest of America hates libertarians. "Throw grandma off the cliff" and all that bullshit.

I don't know if somebody already addressed this or not...

But that is going to happen anyway, just like it did during the collapse of the USSR.

In fact, it is one of the untold genocides of the 20th century.

That thousands of pensioners, dependent on the Soviet system, just flat out died when the whole thing fell apart.

We lack the smarts to do it your way.

We lack the stones to do it angela's way.

So here we sit watching the train approach.

euphemia
12-29-2015, 09:37 PM
The economy in the USSR was very bad to begin with. The whole mindset was different, and because of government, food and housing was not plentiful. And it isn't now. There have been Olympic coaches who stood in food lines so their athletes would have food to eat. This was in the heyday of the Soviet system.

The US has more food available than any country on earth. Nobody eats like we do. People will not starve in the streets.

Gunny, it's very touching that you are concerned for your mother. Please do not let that color your good sense. You would never let your mother starve or live on the streets.

Dr.3D
12-29-2015, 10:01 PM
I don't think that is true. I don't think we can ever say someone dies because of lack of government intervention. A lot of people die because of it. I see hundreds of seniors every day, and I can't say any of them are starving. Quite the opposite. I see many of them who have eaten themselves into oblivion, and weigh so much they can't walk. A lot of them travel quite a bit, which is why I see them, and they are not ashamed to say they have both summer and winter homes.
Maybe the seniors you are seeing are the ones who have money. Usually the ones who travel have money and the ones who are poor don't get out except to go shopping for food and such.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 10:45 PM
Actually...
Well I'll be damned.

I'm glad the people of Nevada today are shit out of luck. Let the ninety percent go and the funds pay for whatever the majority can agree is a worthy cause.

I'm sure if one researched the history of Nevada there'd be nothing shady about the language and offering of wholesale rights to the land. Right?

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 10:56 PM
I don't know if somebody already addressed this or not...

But that is going to happen anyway, just like it did during the collapse of the USSR.

In fact, it is one of the untold genocides of the 20th century.

That thousands of pensioners, dependent on the Soviet system, just flat out died when the whole thing fell apart.

We lack the smarts to do it your way.

We lack the stones to do it angela's way.

So here we sit watching the train approach.
Quadrillions is nothing to be scoffed at. Here we are worrying about twenty trillion in debt but if you really look at it, and understand the Constitution, we have enough money to fund NASA and then some.

I say we parcel off Nevada to fund deep sea exploration and then we parcel off Wyoming to fund free college. Because, the Constitution and stuff.

Social security could be funded by exporting debt and causing the suffering of billions of people. But they're not American and their ancestors might not could have supported a piece of paper so we are all so morally distinct.

Talk about freedumb.

loveshiscountry
12-29-2015, 11:29 PM
Social security is for Americans, not no damned deported immigrantsAgreed. That's what he done gets for being a commie.

angelatc
12-29-2015, 11:33 PM
The only person who has uttered "social contract" here, is you.

I am fairly confident someone else above me said that this was a contract and that libertarians believe that contracts should be honored. Then I am pretty sure I remember that someone else said he didn't remember entering into said contract.

I was merely clarifying the type of contract it is.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 11:42 PM
I am fairly confident someone else above me said that this was a contract and that libertarians believe that contracts should be honored. Then I am pretty sure I remember that someone else said he didn't remember entering into said contract.

I was merely clarifying the type of contract it is.
I mentioned social contract theory a few pages back.

It is exactly what they are proposing and it is antithetical to freedom.

kcchiefs6465
12-29-2015, 11:42 PM
I am fairly confident someone else above me said that this was a contract and that libertarians believe that contracts should be honored. Then I am pretty sure I remember that someone else said he didn't remember entering into said contract.

I was merely clarifying the type of contract it is.
I mentioned social contract theory a few pages back.

It is exactly what they are proposing and it is antithetical to freedom.

devil21
12-29-2015, 11:45 PM
SS is a retirement program and a tax for employees of the corporate federal government. Understand the matrix!

https://llstuler.wordpress.com/

angelatc
12-29-2015, 11:48 PM
I don't know if somebody already addressed this or not...

But that is going to happen anyway, just like it did during the collapse of the USSR.

In fact, it is one of the untold genocides of the 20th century.

That thousands of pensioners, dependent on the Soviet system, just flat out died when the whole thing fell apart.

We lack the smarts to do it your way.

We lack the stones to do it angela's way.

So here we sit watching the train approach.

And I don't think that the reason that conservatives hate Libertarians is because conservatives are sure Grandma is going to die if the government does not take care of them. Thats why librerals hate them.

Conservatives hate them because they won't compromise. Personally, while I'm a "Yank the Band-Aid off" type person, I'd be willing to support someone with Gunny's "phase it out" plan even though I would never believe it would come to fruition.

erowe1
12-30-2015, 10:40 AM
I'm the one trying to end the lethal force by giving everyone back the money fedgov stole, and letting them do what they want with it.


That's mathematically impossible. The money that was stolen from them has already been redistributed to others. The only way to give them anything is by robbing someone else.

tod evans
12-30-2015, 10:48 AM
That's mathematically impossible. The money that was stolen from them has already been redistributed to others. The only way to give them anything is by robbing someone else.

I'm good with robbing all the federal pensions.

Not only that publically strip every retired federal employee of all their assets and sell them at auction, start with the entire justice department.

kcchiefs6465
12-30-2015, 10:55 AM
I'm good with robbing all the federal pensions.

Not only that publically strip every retired federal employee of all their assets and sell them at auction, start with the entire justice department.
Could scrap the MRAPs...

tod evans
12-30-2015, 10:57 AM
Could scrap the MRAPs...

Nah, give 'em to the working folks to use stripping wealth from governments employees.

erowe1
12-30-2015, 11:05 AM
If you take 56 million people off of SS overnight, a whole stinkin bunch of them are going to die. Even if it's only 1% that's still 560,000 people. More likely it will be closer to 5%, or 2.8 million. Dead. If you can't see that then you are living in fantasyland.

I can't see it. Do you have evidence for this? Or is it just dogma for you?

erowe1
12-30-2015, 11:09 AM
I'm good with robbing all the federal pensions.


Absolutely. Me too. But even that's really not robbing any existing funds, but still merely not robbing future tax payers to pay out on those promises to federal workers. After having done that, you still have to keep taxing people in order to pay even one cent of SS to anyone. Government expenditures exceed revenues, and have for a long time.

I think selling off land and other assets, as someone suggested above, may be the only way to both stop taxing people and pay out any SS or other obligations.

Ronin Truth
12-30-2015, 11:28 AM
Absolutely. Me too. But even that's really not robbing any existing funds, but still merely not robbing future tax payers to pay out on those promises to federal workers. After having done that, you still have to keep taxing people in order to pay even one cent of SS to anyone. Government expenditures exceed revenues, and have for a long time.

I think selling off land and other assets, as someone suggested above, may be the only way to both stop taxing people and pay out any SS or other obligations.

The government owns NOTHING. Everything it claims, it has STOLEN.

tod evans
12-30-2015, 11:31 AM
I'd sure feel better about chipping in to support old folks if I could just give my money directly to them instead of government.......


[edit]

The working members of my immediate family could pay our SSI collecting members and 5 other retirees the same stipend at substantially less out of pocket expense than we incur supporting government....

kcchiefs6465
12-30-2015, 11:39 AM
I'd sure feel better about chipping in to support old folks if I could just give my money directly to them instead of government.......


[edit]

The working members of my immediate family could pay our SSI collecting members and 5 other retirees the same stipend at substantially less out of pocket expense than we incur supporting government....
You mean they wouldn't starve and die destitute in the streets?

Weird. I thought only government could be charitable.

tod evans
12-30-2015, 11:42 AM
You mean they wouldn't starve and die destitute in the streets?


I could only hope government leeches would die starving in the street....

The old Evans family members would be fine, several other folks too at our discression....