Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest $iLk

Bush spending 5X that of Clinton spending

Recommended Posts

quote:


Bush spending, Clinton spending. It doesn't matter. Instead of nitpicking between Democrats or Republicans, get them ALL out of office. Prosecute them for crimes against their country, violating the Constitution, execute them, that will send a message to politicians, "If you run for office because you want to manipulate and abuse the USA, you will pay with your life" Only then will you get some real politicians in there.

So you're advocating a police state where we prosecute those who are not even directly responsible for something, in order to make a point?

I'll give Bush as much crap as the next guy for certain areas of spending, but Social Security ain't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

I would give up every dime I have paid into SS if they would allow me to get out of the system and start putting that money in my 401k or a Roth IRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by $iLk:

I would give up every dime I have paid into SS if they would allow me to get out of the system and start putting that money in my 401k or a Roth IRA.


Didn't they mention something about doing just that, awhile back?

I don't think that they will ever give up that cash cow. It gets them oh so many votes from the elders in our country. And it's a great stash of cash to borrow from and never pay back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a police state, Aramike. It's called holding those who violate our Constitution responsible. Starting from the top, those who wrote the illegitimate law, to the bottow with those who enforce the illegitimate law.

Ignorance is not an excuse. Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in a way that can be understood by a layman. If you can't understand what they wrote, you shouldn't be working for the public. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that Social security is redestribution of wealth. Redestribution of wealth is socialism/communism, which in turn is slavery by another name. Taking one persons labor, and giving part of the benefits of that labor to another, is slavery, and it's unconstitutional.

To those who say that what's best for the society can come at the cost of individual. They are forgetting that society is made up of individuals, and a society that takes away from the fundamental and self evident rights of an individual for the best of the society, is not worth living in, defending, or existing as a society. For a society it is not, it is a hive.

So, seeing how Social Security comes at the cost of Individual Security. It is a fallacy, and a violation of my rights under the Constitution. By what right do you take away what I make, and use it for the primary benefit of another? For my right to keep the product of my labor, be it physical or otherwise, is as fundamental as it gets. Those who wrote, approved, and enforced that, are criminals, and have to be treated as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


It's not a police state, Aramike. It's called holding those who violate our Constitution responsible. Starting from the top, those who wrote the illegitimate law, to the bottow with those who enforce the illegitimate law.

...and then get those who've used the system, etc, etc...

My point is simply that its silly to assert that we punish people for participating in a system so entrenched in our society. Rather, our time would be more well-served attempting to debate and educate on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, I HAVE to take this one on more in-depth:

quote:


Ignorance is not an excuse. Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in a way that can be understood by a layman.

Then why are there so many Constitutional disagreements?

Or, are you one of the people who believes that the right to bear arms includes nuclear weaponry?

I mean, if the Constitution is so clear-cut, then how come scholars STILL can't agree on the complete meaning of the 1st Ammendment?

quote:


If you can't understand what they wrote, you shouldn't be working for the public.

That's the SILLIEST thing I have EVER SEEN WRITTEN.

Why, then, does the Supreme Court consist of MORE THAN ONE PERSON as the FOUNDING FATHERS THEMSELVES designed it? Would that be, perhaps, because they KNEW that there would be fundamental disagreements on the premise and actionability of Constitutional issues?

If the Constitution was anywhere NEAR as clear-cut as you'd make it out to be, than we wouldn't even NEED a Supreme Court to interpret it.

quote:


It doesn't take a genious to figure out that Social security is redestribution of wealth. Redestribution of wealth is socialism/communism, which in turn is slavery by another name.

No, it's not.

Slavery involves not being able to acquire ANY WEALTH WHATSOEVER for yourself.

While I fundamentally disagree with MOST instances of redistributing wealth, I won't go so far as to compare it to slavery because I would be wrong to do so.

quote:


Taking one persons labor, and giving part of the benefits of that labor to another, is slavery, and it's unconstitutional.

No, its Communism. There's a reason why there's a word for slavery and a word for communism.

While I don't believe in Marxism or Maoism, I do believe that ANY nation, if it wishes to exist, must have SOME forms of communism in order to allocate resources effectively, and to keep people from dying in the streets.

However, I will say that we've gone WAY TOO FAR in this nation with regards to redistributing wealth.

quote:


To those who say that what's best for the society can come at the cost of individual. They are forgetting that society is made up of individuals, and a society that takes away from the fundamental and self evident rights of an individual for the best of the society, is not worth living in, defending, or existing as a society. For a society it is not, it is a hive.

Seriously, that is just "fluff" rhetoric.

A collection of individuals is a society, or perhaps a culture, and said entities can require different resources than any single individual.

Think: Joe Blow may grow his own food and have access to his own water, and therefore may not require a car or, as a result, roads. But that doesn't mean we don't build roads for the SOCIETY.

quote:


So, seeing how Social Security comes at the cost of Individual Security. It is a fallacy, and a violation of my rights under the Constitution.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO AMMENDMENT in the Constitution to back up this absurd statement.

While I agree that it is wrong, I'm not so arrogant as to act as though my disagreement is based upon the auspices of Constitional law.

quote:


By what right do you take away what I make, and use it for the primary benefit of another?

Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution CLEARLY disagrees with you. I thought it was so easy to understand?

Furthermore, read:

Amendment XVI - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I don't know what country's constitution YOU'RE reading, but it ain't the US Constitution.

quote:


Those who wrote, approved, and enforced that, are criminals, and have to be treated as such.

First of all, the violation of Constitutional law is NOT considered a "crime". It's a civil, Constitutional matter.

A "crime" is a violation of the "Criminal Code of Justice".

Secondly, we have a SYSTEM (which you say you back) for taking care of violations of Constitutional rights. It does NOT include trials and executions of politicians. (or anyone else, for that matter).

If you have a disagreement with the system, use the system to fight it.

[ 08-19-2006, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: aramike ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

... It doesn't take a genious to figure out that Social security is redestribution of wealth. Redestribution of wealth is socialism/communism, which in turn is slavery by another name. Taking one persons labor, and giving part of the benefits of that labor to another, is slavery, and it's unconstitutional.

To those who say that what's best for the society can come at the cost of individual. They are forgetting that society is made up of individuals, ...

While I don't agree with Social Security in principal, I would agree with the system that Chile has put in place. The system they have BOTH puts retirement income in the hands of the individual, AND provides for a Minimum safetey net, in case the investments they make go south. Really, it's a phycological thing, more than likely, the government will NEVER need to step in because, let's face it, if you're saving a bare minimum of 12% of your income all your working life, you won't need any help from anyone. The Problem is, U.S. society will NEVER accept a system that doesn't provide some sort of safety net. People's memories of the Great Depression may have faded, but they're not completely gone. Arguments like yours basically fall on deaf ears in this country, because, even if the system IS a transfer of wealth from one group to another, no one is going to say, "hey, let's let all those old folks starve to death, it's unconstitutional". I mean come on! Do you REALLY expect anyone to buy that argument?

This is the United States of America, unlike most of the world, we DO have a TRULY free market economy, where anything goes, fortunes are made and lost along with whole carreers and job descriptions. This has made us into the Richest and most powerfull country in the world. However, UNLIKE South America, Africa and some parts of Asia, we will not allow our citizens to live in squalor, nor starve to death. Of course, this invites some to take advantage of the system, or in the case of SS, to skew the system in favor of one group (retirees) over another group (the working populace), in essense to buy votes. However, as the Great Depression has shown us, we DO need safety nets, if for nothing else to serve as a safety valve to keep the economy from completely disintegrating because NO ONE has a any money to spend.

I've said here before, that the conditions that led to the Great Depression no longer exist. We have a better understanding of how free trade affects us, how monetary policy affects us, and how other things such as Banking Policy affects us. Imagine if you will, what would have happened if the US Banking System were not insured and in 1986 the 500 Billion the government had to pay to bail out the system, instead was coming directly out of the pockets of individuals like you? It would have devastated the economy and there would have been huge runs on the banking system.

Any time you enter into a debate, I think it's usefull to provide some sort of resolution to a problem. No one likes someone who presents a problem, but no resolution. If your resolution is to eliminate SS and to Jail the Congress, then you're not debating anything, now you're just ranting. It's kind of sad too, because I remember you used to be such a good debater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Darkling.

I didn't mean to take so much offense, but I find it ridiculous and personal to say that my government (agree with it or not) should be executed for violating the Constitution when it TECHNICALLY is not. Also, to attempt to draw a parallel between limited redistribution of wealth and slavery is preposturous in the Nth degree.

We're a country with representative government and freedom of speech. Those things don't only apply when you agree with them.

Soback and I may agree that Social Security is bologna, but at least be intellectually honest when you debate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×