Republican Tea Party Candidate goons handcuff reporter.

Yep and France just raise their retirement age, and will have to do so again, their retirement system is in worse shape than ours.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, so you are saying congressmen do not participate in Social Security? If so you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And where is you evidence for your claim that the French retirement system is in worse shape than the American system?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The French retirement system faces a huge budget deficit, but its average life expectancy and aging that is the source. The recent rise went from 60 to 62....thats still below the UKs 65 thats proposed.

 

Mr. joepistole? oh Mr. joepistole? did you read your citation? Oh Mr. joepistole????

From your own citation Mr. joepistole;

The current pension program, effective January 1987, is under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), and you become vested in it after only 5 years.........vested as in a contractual interest, something that does not exist under Social Security.

Under Social Security there is no vestement......

From the Governments own web site;

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html​

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.

Flemming V. Nestor

Case Name: FLEMMING V. NESTOR 363 U.S. 603

NO. 54. ARGUED FEBRUARY 24, 1960. - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1960. - 169 F. SUPP. 922, REVERSED.

THE TERMINATION OF OLD-AGE BENEFITS PAYABLE TO AN ALIEN WHO, AFTER THE DATE OF ITS ENACTMENT (SEPTEMBER 1, 1954), IS DEPORTED UNDER SEC. 241(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT ON ANY ONE OF CERTAIN GROUNDS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 202(N). APPELLEE, AN ALIEN WHO HAD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR OLD-AGE BENEFITS IN 1955, WAS DEPORTED IN 1956, PURSUANT TO SEC. 241(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, FOR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY FROM 1933 TO 1939. SINCE THIS WAS ONE OF THE GROUNDS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 202(N), HIS OLD-AGE BENEFITS WERE TERMINATED SHORTLY THEREAFTER. HE COMMENCED THIS ACTION IN A SINGLE JUDGE DISTRICT COURT, UNDER SEC. 205(G) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, TO SECURE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT SEC. 202(N) DEPRIVED APPELLEE OF AN ACCRUED PROPERTY RIGHT AND, THEREFORE, VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. HELD:

1. ALTHOUGH THIS ACTION DREW INTO QUESTION THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 202(N), IT DID NOT INVOLVE AN INJUNCTION OR OTHERWISE INTERDICT THE OPERATION OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2282, FORBIDDING THE ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION OR EXECUTION OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS FOR REPUGNANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION, EXCEPT BY A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT, WAS NOT APPLICABLE; AND JURISDICTION OVER THE ACTION WAS PROPERLY EXERCISED BY THE SINGLE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT. PP. 606-608.

2. A PERSON COVERED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT HAS NOT SUCH A RIGHT IN OLD-AGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS AS WOULD MAKE EVERY DEFEASANCE OF "ACCRUED" INTERESTS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. PP. 608-611.
(A) THE NONCONTRACTUAL INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE ACT CANNOT BE SOUNDLY ANALOGIZED TO THAT OF THE HOLDER OF AN ANNUITY, WHOSE RIGHTS TO BENEFITS ARE BASED ON HIS CONTRACTUAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS. PP. 608-610.
(B) TO ENGRAFT UPON THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM A CONCEPT OF "ACCRUED PROPERTY RIGHTS" WOULD DEPRIVE IT OF THE FLEXIBILITY AND BOLDNESS IN ADJUSTMENT TO EVER-CHANGING CONDITIONS WHICH IT DEMANDS AND WHICH CONGRESS PROBABLY HAD IN MIND WHEN IT EXPRESSLY RESERVED THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT. PP. 610-611.

3. SECTION 202(N) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE CONDEMNED AS SO LACKING IN RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION AS TO OFFEND DUE PROCESS. PP. 611-612.

4. TERMINATION OF APPELLEE'S BENEFITS UNDER SEC. 202(N) DOES NOT AMOUNT TO PUNISHING HIM WITHOUT A TRIAL, IN VIOLATION OF ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 3, OF THE CONSTITUTION OR THE SIXTH AMENDMENT; NOR IS SEC. 202(N) A BILL OF ATTAINDER OR EX POST FACTO LAW, SINCE ITS PURPOSE IS NOT PUNITIVE. PP. 612-621.

Uh Mr. joepistole, your own citation show Congress has their own retirement program, that is not Social Security.

Under the Congressional system a congressman is entitled to The pension amount is determined by a formula that takes into account the years served and the average pay for the top three years in terms of payment. In 2002, the average pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000. For example, a Congressman who worked for 22 years and had a top three-year average salary of $153,900 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,645 per year.[3]

and guess where that money is invested, again not in Social Security Bonds, but in Wall Street.

Yes the democrats friend of the working suckers, get vested in their retirement after only 5 years, the average pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000 a month, and the poor friend of the Democrats the poor working sucker, what does he get?

$1047 a month, and there is no vestment to that retirment.

Congress can change it at any time for any reason.​

And you can bet your sweet bippiy that Those Congressmen will also take that $1047 on top of the $41,000 to $55,000 a month, and free health care as a sweetener.

 

Why yes I did mr. roam.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why were you not able to read the following relevant material from the citation?

"The Social Security Amendments of 1983 required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security beginning January 1, 1984". - Wikipedia

Congress is covered under Social Security and do pay into the system which disproves your claim to the contrary mr. roam.

Wrong again mr. roam. One all qualified pension plans must give full vesting after 5 years...not just congressional....news flash a couple of decades late.

Social Security requires a vesting of 40 quarters or 10 years of work to qualify.

The case law you cited is not relevant. It relates to an alien who was deported. Social Security has laws. If you want those benefits you have to play by the rules. There is nothing suprising or even relevant to your claim that Congress was somehow exempt from Social Security.

More of your chaff mr. roam intended to cover yet another in your long series of errors and lies.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2641308&postcount=100

 

joe, guess what;

Case Name: FLEMMING V. NESTOR 363 U.S. 603


2. A PERSON COVERED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT HAS NOT SUCH A RIGHT IN OLD-AGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS AS WOULD MAKE EVERY DEFEASANCE OF "ACCRUED" INTERESTS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. PP. 608-611.

(A) THE NONCONTRACTUAL INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE ACT CANNOT BE SOUNDLY ANALOGIZED TO THAT OF THE HOLDER OF AN ANNUITY, WHOSE RIGHTS TO BENEFITS ARE BASED ON HIS CONTRACTUAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS. PP. 608-610.

(B) TO ENGRAFT UPON THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM A CONCEPT OF "ACCRUED PROPERTY RIGHTS" WOULD DEPRIVE IT OF THE FLEXIBILITY AND BOLDNESS IN ADJUSTMENT TO EVER-CHANGING CONDITIONS WHICH IT DEMANDS AND WHICH CONGRESS PROBABLY HAD IN MIND WHEN IT EXPRESSLY RESERVED THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT. PP. 610-611.

Yes, joe you have to pay your 40 quarters, but Fleming v Nestor say it all, there is no right contractual or other wise to collect any Social Security.

 

Fleming v Nestor says you have to follow the rules. If you are an alien and deported you loose Social Security benefits.

 

No joe, show me exactly where in that Supreme Court Decission that statement is made.

In point of fact explain this from the decission;

(B) TO ENGRAFT UPON THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM A CONCEPT OF "ACCRUED PROPERTY RIGHTS" WOULD DEPRIVE IT OF THE FLEXIBILITY AND BOLDNESS IN ADJUSTMENT TO EVER-CHANGING CONDITIONS WHICH IT DEMANDS AND WHICH CONGRESS PROBABLY HAD IN MIND WHEN IT EXPRESSLY RESERVED THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT. PP. 610-611.

 

Now mr. roam how is any of this bs related to the topic at hand? You claimed that congress was not covered by Social Security and you are just plain wrong yet again.

Yeah congress can alter benefits. So what? The bottom line is you were and are wrong. You are changing the subject yet again to cover your tail.

 

I said Congress doesn't have their retirement invested in Social Security Bonds, and as a fact Congress didn't belong to SS until 1984.

No joe, I am not wrong, it is you who are wrong by insisting that Congress has to continue Social security as it exist today even as it is going broke.

Social Security has to change,

Now exactly where is Congress going to get the money to redeem the Bonds in the Social Security Lock Box?

The money collected was spent, and Congress, the Government issued Bonds, and to redeem those bonds is going to take more money, and guess where that money comes from?

We already paid once and were given the promise of a lock box, but that box doesn't exist...as clearly spelled out by, Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548, citing Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, May 3, 1937, - U. S. -:

The proceeds of the excise when collected are paid into the Treasury at Washington, and thereafter are subject to appropriation like public moneys generally. Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, May 3, 1937, - U. S. -. No presumption can be indulged that they will be misapplied or wasted.

And we have no "ACCRUED PROPERTY RIGHTS" as spelled out by FLEMMING V. NESTOR 363 U.S. 603

So joe, what is wrong about revamping the Current Social Security System, to;

1. If you are 55 and older you remain under the current system.

2. If your are younger than 55 you are given a choice of where you wish to invest your retirement.

3. That moneys are still taken by law, and invested it the instrument that you choose for your retirement.

4. That there is still a tax to support those in the current system 5 and older, that tax would eventually die out as the last of the 55 and older died out to.

5. Under the new system the retirement belong to you, and you can chose your retirement age starting at 55 like under the current system to when ever you feel like retireing.

6. The Programs would transfer with you as you changed jobs and the money would be yours to pass on to your heirs at your direction, and one of those choices would be to have it go into their retirement programs, eventually the family would be able to take care of their own members be it disability or retirement.

Yes Mr. joe, what is wrong with that?

Remember;

Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548, citing Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, May 3, 1937, - U. S. -:

The money is nothing but taxes to be deposited in to the General Funds.


FLEMMING V. NESTOR 363 U.S. 603

They don't have to pay you, you have no;

"ACCRUED PROPERTY RIGHTS"

 

If you invest Social Security in the Stock Market, it's no longer insurance, because it could all be lost.

 

So they made a small change. You want to hand it all over to corporations. If they wanted to do that in France, there would have been another revolution there.

 

A lot of the population, most of the population is not equipped by training/knowlege and/or temperment qualified to manage this kind of money. Priviatizing Social Security will be great for investors...no so great for Social Security reciepents.

 

And if it was handed over to the corporations you would have a contractual right to that money, something you do not have under Social Security.

Ephram Nestor, had His FICA deducted from His checks for 19 years and supposedly placed in to the Social Security Trust Fund for His retirement.

First problem........FICA proceeds are taxes, and like any like any other tax it is deposited in to the General Funds of the United States to be used like any other tax, and cannot be earmarked for any specific use.

Ephram Nestor, believed what He was told by the Government, that His money was in a lock box that was His upon retirement, Ephram Nestor was even drawing His Social Security...... He had retired.

Second problem.......There was no contractual right to any of the money, it was not a annuity, or comparable to any other contractual savings vessel, there was no accrued contractual right to any of the money.

The Government had the right to change the rule any time they wished.

1960 -- Volume 363 -- FLEMMING V. NESTOR, 363 US 603

1937 -- Volume 301 -- HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 US 619

http://mises.org/daily/949

 

Why don't you tell that to ENRON employees and debt holders or how about Lehman creditors or how about Bernard Maddoff's investors? Why don't you ask them how much their conractual rights are worth right now?

More chaff mr. roam. Congress can change all of the rules..even your pension rules at any time and for any reason. A lot of those folks currently on Social Security and Medicare are getting far more in benefits than they ever put in to the program. But they still are not getting enough to support themselves independently so they wind up in nursing homes.

 

joe, the employees? now the stock holders, in the end they still recovered any moneys left, under Social Security you get nothing when the government decides to crash the program.

joe, the chaff dispenser is you, and guess what, you have just pointed out exactly why things are going to have to change......

A lot of those folks currently on Social Security and Medicare are getting far more in benefits than they ever put in to the program​

The Democrats have expanded the programs past the ability to fund them, and in doing so have destroyed the ability of the market to control the cost.

The average life expectancy in the U.S. today is 77.9 when social security was implemented it was 59.2....

Actuary table are brutal, we have people living longer, and the baby boomers are now hitting the system, and the systems are broke, be it Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, the money long spent by the Democrats starting when the New Deal Programs took effect, again;

1960 -- Volume 363 -- FLEMMING V. NESTOR, 363 US 603

1937 -- Volume 301 -- HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 US 619

The FICA is nothing more than a Tax, and as such it is place into the general funds and spent.

A government "bond" owned by the issuing government is neither a bond nor a promise. One cannot be indebted to oneself. One cannot enter into a contract with oneself. Writing out an IOU to oneself is a legal nonevent. It creates no property rights. On the other hand, a government bond held by an individual is a contractual right, and a contractual right of this type is property.

 

Again, how much are the contractual obligations of Enron, Madoff, or Lehman worth now? Not much. At least the government has the ability to raise revenues or make more money to pay its bills...something private companies cannot do.

And as previously pointed out Congress makes the laws and can change them at any time. It can change you pension at any time should it decide to do so.

The government is not the individual. The individual has no direct control of the nations finances. Your attempt to merge the two is illogical to the extreme.

A government bond is a government bond...no matter how much you don't like it. The government can and does make the rules and enforces them. Government can change rules and it can print money. A government owed debt is much more secure than a commercial debt. That is why corporations around the globe use US debt as a guage of risk free interest rates and use that rate upon which to calucate risk adjusted interest rates.

 

Talk about chaff.......

joe, now just exactly how is the government going to redeem those bonds??

The people already paid once in FICA Taxes, the government spent the money, and then issued a bond from itself to itself, so please inform those of us who disagree with your premise exactly where the government is going to get the money to redeem those bonds?

There is only one place the government can get money, and that is from the Tax Payer.

or

The Government can create money with the printing press, and we are already seen what happens with that......inflation.

So where is the Government going to get the money? Especially since we already have a National Debt of;

$13,727,147,399,038.59​

 

you who spouts republican talking points has no right to lecture anyone on the national debt you and yours are responsible for it. had we followed with more people like carter rather than the reagan revolution we wouldn't be in this mess. we'd have national health care, a decent economy and a national debt of maybe 5 trill