Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-06-2011, 09:56 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,929,437 times
Reputation: 9383

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
42 USC 7 says you are wrong.
Not one part of Title 42 says Social Security is guaranteed.

US Supreme Court ruling Flemming v. Nestor, 1960, says I'm correct.

Nestor challenged this Section after he was denied Social Security payments as a deported member of the Communist Party. He argued that a contract existed between himself and the United States government, since he had paid into the system for 19 years.

The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right
to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2011, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,806,193 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And now we are back to the beginning of the discussion.

AGAIN, have you seen the markets? THEY HAVE SPOKEN.. And the markets state that S&P has more credibility than some online poster's opinion of the S&P.

Little reaction? What the hell are you smoking? Clearly you have been busy watching Disney.com all week rather than the reality the rest of the world lives in.
I respond to the actual post, not some noise that may be rattling around in a poster's head. But do carry on. By the way, what is the Market for US Debt?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,322,469 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
But no where in the report do they say revenue increases should be comprised of tax increases, but thats what lefties are saying.

They did not. They took aim at the failure to address spending cuts, something the Tea Partiers are calling for. In fact they validated the tea parties position. Re-read the report, in specific the reasons why they might downgrade the credit ratings again. 100% of that is the exact same position the tea partiers hold

Mentioning items arent budget proposals. If the president was so supportive of these reforms, why didnt his budget proposal implement them? Democrats DID NOT want cuts, they wanted FUTURE cuts, and the S&P wanted cuts NOW. In fact they wanted MORE cuts, not imaginary cuts in future spending, but REAL cuts.
I think revenue increases should come mainly from ending subsides and tax credits.

90% of Americans think we should repeal the Bush tax cuts for the richest 5% of Americans also.

The problem with Republicans in the debt ceiling fight was that they could agree to ending those subsidies sand tax credits, but they wanted to put those right back into tax cuts in other places. That way the tax increase was at 0 by moving them around.

I say tax increases, mainly because the Republican party has said that any revenue increase is a tax increase, if not redistributed in any other form.

About the President not having an official deal, thats how Washington works, no deal is proposed until its agreed to. Ask Ryan what happens when you don't follow that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 09:57 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,929,437 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
I respond to the actual post, not some noise that may be rattling around in a poster's head. But do carry on.
No as usual, you have nothing of substance to offer dealing with anything I said?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 09:58 AM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,731,655 times
Reputation: 7019
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The House comprises most of those, but the House is only 50% of all of Congress. Having most of them in the House, does not mean a GOP Congress because the Senate holds the other 50%... Where on gods earth did you guys go to school?
Did I claim a GoP Congress? No, I asked where said poster got the notion that Congress has more Democrats than Republicans, and asked for him to clarify whether he was only referring to the Senate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 09:59 AM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,364,867 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Not one part of Title 42 says Social Security is guaranteed.

US Supreme Court ruling Flemming v. Nestor, 1960, says I'm correct.

Nestor challenged this Section after he was denied Social Security payments as a deported member of the Communist Party. He argued that a contract existed between himself and the United States government, since he had paid into the system for 19 years.

The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right
to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
That court case was
1. about the Constitutional validity of social security.
2. about whether Congress can amend benefits.

As I said congress is free to amend any statute it likes and is free to appropriate money how it likes. If congress says we are not going to pay on our T-Bonds they can do that as well. That does not mean there is not an explicit agreement in writing that says if you meet X qualifications you shall be entitled to benefits. That is something that is conspicously absent from most GSEs.

As to 42 USC 7 Subchapter II, S402 (a) says that if you meet requirements you shall be entitled to benefits.

Last edited by Randomstudent; 08-06-2011 at 10:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 10:05 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,929,437 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
I think revenue increases should come mainly from ending subsides and tax credits.
Fantastic, lets start with ending the earned income tax credit subsidies, because liberals have shown they dont know the difference between a subsidy, and a business expense. With their tyraid about ending the oil subsidies, which was nothing more than normal business expenses afforded to every business in america, and pretty much the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
90% of Americans think we should repeal the Bush tax cuts for the richest 5% of Americans also.
Thankfully for america, we arent a majority rule. Even the CBO acknowledged the tax cuts increased revenues, and yet we have liberals moaning and groaning, wanting to reduce revenues, while crying about the debt. Feel good legislation isnt whats needed to solve real financial problems. The "I got mine, screw them" mentality of americans is getting pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
The problem with Republicans in the debt ceiling fight was that they could agree to ending those subsidies sand tax credits, but they wanted to put those right back into tax cuts in other places. That way the tax increase was at 0 by moving them around.
Thats bull crap. Democrats have proven that they dont even know the difference between expenses and subsidies, so until we can clearly define what is a subsidy, and what isnt, Democrats will get no where.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
I say tax increases, mainly because the Republican party has said that any revenue increase is a tax increase, if not redistributed in any other form.
Isnt that why Congress passed the Paygo rule? The very one Democrats waived for every single bill they passed? Furthermore, no, the Republican party has said no such thing. Even the Obama debt commission opposes tax increases to solve the solutions. They said that broadening the tax base is whats needed, but not ONE Democrat is supporting real solutions. Why? Could it be that they want the 95% above to vote for them? Yep.. Putting politics instead of fiscal issues, much more important to Democrats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
About the President not having an official deal, thats how Washington works, no deal is proposed until its agreed to. Ask Ryan what happens when you don't follow that.
Not true at all. Presidents job is to start the fiscal budget discussion by writing a budget proposal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 10:08 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,929,437 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
That court case was
1. about the Constitutional validity of social security.
2. about whether Congress can amend benefits.

As I said congress is free to amend anything it likes and is free to appropriate money how it likes. If congress says we are not going to pay on our T-Bonds they can do that as well. That does not mean there is not an explicit agreement in writing that says if you meet X qualifications you shall be entitled to benefits. That is something that is conspicously absent from most GSEs.

As to 42 USC 7 Subchapter II, S402 (a) says that if you meet requirements you shall be entitled to benefits.
No that was not dealing with the validity of Social Security. It was whether or not you are ENTITLED to benefits. Read the court discussion because the individual in question met every qualification but was still denied benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,322,469 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Fantastic, lets start with ending the earned income tax credit subsidies, because liberals have shown they dont know the difference between a subsidy, and a business expense. With their tyraid about ending the oil subsidies, which was nothing more than normal business expenses afforded to every business in america, and pretty much the world.

Thankfully for america, we arent a majority rule. Even the CBO acknowledged the tax cuts increased revenues, and yet we have liberals moaning and groaning, wanting to reduce revenues, while crying about the debt. Feel good legislation isnt whats needed to solve real financial problems. The "I got mine, screw them" mentality of americans is getting pathetic.

Thats bull crap. Democrats have proven that they dont even know the difference between expenses and subsidies, so until we can clearly define what is a subsidy, and what isnt, Democrats will get no where.

Isnt that why Congress passed the Paygo rule? The very one Democrats waived for every single bill they passed? Furthermore, no, the Republican party has said no such thing. Even the Obama debt commission opposes tax increases to solve the solutions. They said that broadening the tax base is whats needed, but not ONE Democrat is supporting real solutions. Why? Could it be that they want the 95% above to vote for them? Yep.. Putting politics instead of fiscal issues, much more important to Democrats.

Not true at all. Presidents job is to start the fiscal budget discussion by writing a budget proposal.
End ALL tax subsides for business, people, individuals, families, everyone.

End ALL tax credits for everyone.

Step number one.

Step number two, cut spending on anything that is over seas. Meaning bases in Germany, Turkey, end the wars now, foreign aid, etc.

The deficit commission said the Bush tax cuts should be repealed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2011, 10:15 AM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,364,867 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
No that was not dealing with the validity of Social Security. It was whether or not you are ENTITLED to benefits. Read the court discussion because the individual in question met every qualification but was still denied benefits.
Maybe you should read it. A fair amount of the case was about the Constitutionality of Section 202 of the act was deemed invalid at the District Court level. The court held that there is no property right to benefits, and that people have no property interest in their benefits. Meaning that congress need only a rational basis for amending the program. That doesn't mean that the Congress is not allowed to make explicit guarantees to entitlement in statutory language, which they did. It simply means there is no Constitutional property right in your SSA benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top