I get a lot of my inspiration from my online debates and this is no exception. April 13,2013 TEA Party Perspective’s sponsored “Tax Day Pints and Politics” . On facebook I clicked on maybe and saw many familiar names none of which I have met but wanted to. I tried to find a way to get down there in order to meet many of my fellow patriots. When I found that it was impossible to attend the event I changed from maybe to no and found that facebook puts declines in a separate area. But again I found several familiar names among the trolls. Among these was Andrew Rogers, a leftist activist who tried to shut down Conservative Talk Radio so being me I engaged him. I pointed to the fact that the so called “entitlements” were what was driving our national debt and that they would eventually destroy our country.
Marshall Keith Andrew, andrew, andrew. You leftist like to call them entitlements but you are only entitled to that which is yours. Before Johnsons great society so called entitlement spending amounted to 2.5 now it’s 10.http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/pdf/all-budget-chart-book-2012.pdf
His reaction was predictable and dead wrong.
Andrew Alan Rogers “And it is those “entitlement programs” that put us in debt.”
100% Dead Wrong!
They’re called entitlements for a reason: We pay into them. Did you even know that much of the US debt is owed TO the Social Security trust fund? And that SS has been in surplus for almost 2 decades? And if we raise the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes, it would remain in surplus for several more decades at least.
I called Social Security the Ponzi Scheme that it was and again his response was predictable.
Andrew Alan Rogers Marshall, that dog don’t hunt.
But even if SS were a Ponzi scheme, then so are the private investment accounts that conservatives propose as an alternative to Social Security.
Sorry Andrew first if it is put in I private account that I paid into that is in my name then it truly is mine and by all rights I really am entitled to it, it is MINE.
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.
The Long-Run Financial Outlook Social Security is not sustainable over the long term at current benefit and tax rates. Beginning in 2010 and continuing in 2011, the program paid more in benefits and expenses than it
collected in taxes and other noninterest income, and the 2012 Trustees Report projects this pattern to continue for the next 75 years. The Trustees estimate that the trust funds will be exhausted by 2033. At that point, payroll taxes and other income will flow into the fund but will be sufficient to pay only 75% of program costs. As reported in the 2012 Trustees Report, the
projected shortfall over the next 75 years is 2.67% of taxable payroll.
Now remember the definition of Ponzi Scheme.
When social security was enacted there were 7 people paying in for every person collecting by 1960 that ratio has dropped to 5:1 and by their own projections it will drop to 2:1 by 2040.
The worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen from 5.1 in 1960 to 3.3 in 2005. Some of the historical decline is related to the natural maturing of a pay-as-you-go social insurance program, but the projected future decline is due to the aging of the U.S. population. This ratio is of fundamental importance to the long-run fiscal health of the U.S. Social Security program. With currently scheduled tax rates and benefits, the system needs a worker-to-beneficiary ratio of about 2.8 to function at a pay-as-you-go level (meaning that tax revenue approximately equals benefit payments). The Social Security Trustees project that the ratio will slip below this level by 2020 and will fall to only 2.1 workers per beneficiary by 2040.
Sounds an awful lot like a Ponzi Scheme to me. Oh and are you entitled to it? The progressives of old started raiding this so called trust right from the beginning and of course this went through the courts much like Obamacare. The collections were not an investment into a trust they were a tax and the payout was not a benefit that you were entitled to but in fact welfare.
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, and did not contravene the 10th Amendment. The Court defended the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional.
Oh an just because you payed into it you think that it is a right? Wrong again dear liberal. If it were a private account in my name, yes by all means it is mine and I have every right to it. Again right from Social Security documents.
The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program’s funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish “rights” to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are “an earned right.” This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility–and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn. . . . There has been a temptation throughout the program’s history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled “RESERVATION OF POWER,” specifically said: “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.” Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.
In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor’s denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor’s benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.
So no dear Andrew, a tax is not an investment, an entitlement is not a right and the so called trust was a Ponzi Scheme after all.