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.
Thats what i also think Can someone answer this for me? why is it seen as legit for mainstream Democrats to associate with and pandor to people that would support such views?
In America's case, socialism (collectivism) was foisted by a double lie.
First, FICA was touted as an insurance program - but it wasn't. FICA was just a tax enacted in the midst of the Great Depression.
Second, FICA was presumed mandatory, when in fact, it was voluntary.
The net result is a people who believe they're compelled by law to volunteer into servitude, and also believe they paid into a "Trust fund" and are thus "owed" benefits as a property right.
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.
Thus we have an entrenched bloc of recipients / voters who will NEVER vote for a candidate who promises to reduce their own "benefits" - which amount to bribery derived from voluntary servitude from a people who are convinced they are compelled to participate. In short, we have the best socialist government bribery can buy.
With such a BIG LIE as its foundation, it is no wonder that American politics is a horrid mess.
A system where everyone is equal and everyone is satisfied is pure utopia.
It can never happen, because such a system goes against human nature.
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.
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.
Can someone answer this for me? why is it seen as legit for mainstream Democrats to associate with and pandor to people that would support such views?
