The Myth of the Benevolent Left

a reply to: Gryphon66

For those slow on the uptake.

Right I 'can't'!!!!

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.

www.ssa.gov...

People have NO RIGHT to ss.

Deal.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

For those slow on the uptake.

Right I 'can't'!!!!

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.

www.ssa.gov...

People have NO RIGHT to ss.

Deal.

BS, no that's not even what THIS decision says ... but one thing at a time ... you stated that the decision in Helvering stated that "people have no right to Social Security."

We're waiting.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well if ya actually bothered to READ the CATO article.

Fleming V Nestor, and Hellvring V Davis were talked about.

Fleming V Nestor establish there is no contractual RIGHT to SS.

Hellvring V Davis established SS TAXES are not earmarked in ANY WAY.

Which means those TAXES are held in a general 'slush' fund. The State can use however it sees fit.

Under ANY interpretation of 'general welfare' it wants to.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well if ya actually bothered to READ the CATO article.

Fleming V Nestor, and Hellvring V Davis were talked about.

Fleming V Nestor establish there is no contractual RIGHT to SS.

Hellvring V Davis established SS TAXES are not earmarked in ANY WAY.

Which means those TAXES are held in a general 'slush' fund. The State can use however it sees fit.

Under ANY interpretation of 'general welfare' it wants to.

So, you were lying when you said that any of these prove that "People have no right to SS"?

Okay. I'm really glad you can admit that.

Helvering doesn't say that "people have no right to SS" and Fleming doesn't say that "people have no right to SS" and NEITHER OF THEM SAY CRAP ABOUT the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE.

Note: You're desperately trying to slam the decision in Fleming to fit your ridiculous argument. It doesn't.

From your link:

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.

There is no CONTRACTUAL right to funds paid in to the Social Security fund. There is no CONTRACT between the US Government and any citizen that says that they will NEVER CHANGE THE TERMS of the Social Security Act (like for example, increasing benefits) ... but that in no way says anything equivalent to "people have no right to SS."

You know you're utterly talking through your hat ... and so does everyone else.

Double post

a reply to: Gryphon66

So, you were lying when you said that any of these prove that "People have no right to SS"?

So how am I ''lying' when it's on the social security website ?

www.ssa.gov...

Here it is AGAIN.

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.

a reply to: neo96

Yes, the snippet you're clinging to is "on the Social Security website."

It doesn't say that "people have no right to SS" as you keep desperately trying to portray.

First of all, Nestor was not a citizen of the United States.

From Flemming v. Nestor:

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.

Nestor's benefits had been terminated in the 50s when he was deported for being a Communist in the 30s.

He argued that he had "accrued property rights" in the funds paid into the system.

The Supreme Court ruled that he in fact did not have "accrued property rights" because there was no "CONTRACTURAL RELATIONSHIP" ...

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.

This is what Flemming said, verbatim, quoted from your source at socialsecurity.gov.

You didn't even make an ATTEMPT at proving your claim regarding Helvering.

Your statement that no one has a right to SS is patently ridiculous.

And again ... NONE of that speaks to the reality of the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So this doesn't mean what it MEANS ?

In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

Wowzers.

Hell write the SSA and tell them they got it 'wrong'.

S.S. is indeed not a right.

The never-beneficiary population

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

So this doesn't mean what it MEANS ?

In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

Wowzers.

Hell write the SSA and tell them they got it 'wrong'.

Pathetic.

Yes, it means that poor Mr. Nestor in 1954 got cheated out of his Social Security benefits due to his deportation by McCarthyites.

It means that there is no "contractual relationship" established in Social Security that creates accrued property rights.

It does not mean that people have no right to collect their Social Security in general, or that Social Security is illegal in any way, or any of the rest of the nonsense you were trying to imply.

I don't have to write Social Security ... they know the facts of the matter. It is you that persists in absurdity.

The Supreme Court decision was quoted to you and disproved specifically your claim.

You didn't even address the original decision that you started off on ...

and none of this says a single word about the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE of our Constitution, which is, you may remember, what you were DESPERATELY trying to claim.

originally posted by: xuenchen
S.S. is indeed not a right.

The never-beneficiary population

Quote anything from that page that says that "SS is indeed not a right"

Please. That regards those people who pay in who never collect ... the "never-beneficiaries" ... there's a host of reasons for that, none of which are "they don't have a right to SS"

OP has quit the thread.

Any further comments on the initial posts would be unfair and superfluous.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"


Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8.

Does Congress "collect Taxes"?

The general welfare clause means that the Constitution is intended as a good thing, not an onerous or mystical duty.

If the Welfare clause can justify confiscating half of the citizens wealth, why is there any need for the rest of the Constitution?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

You shouldn't complain.

Paying taxes is just the same as feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless.

Even though people will go hungry and stay homeless.

Except for politicians. They'll be well fed and have nice homes.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
-- snip --
The fact remains the left in theory supports the idea of being compassionate to people as a political action which is quite separate from any personality traits one has.

The fact remains progressive doctrine tries to make life easier for the poor and downtrodden as a political action.
-- snip --

I've written of this before so will try to give the Reader's Digest version. If this seems unclear I'll be glad to answer any questions.

On another online forum a few years ago I complained of the food for homeless project that grew from one young couple to include everyone on their block (it was in Texas). Everything was bought with personal funds and free of charge. The food was the same meals that were served to their families at home. Before the gov't shut them down they'd reached the point of providing an average of 500 hot, healthy meals every Wednesday night.

When I posted a rant about it I was lectured by another member that what was Sad was that it took a Social Progressive to point out to me that someone had to make sure those homeless weren't being fed dangerous food!

So she got to feel better about herself while the homeless went back to dumpster diving for unfinished food (if the rice is squirming just pick it off...) in the hope that Someday Someone will form a Panel to do a Feasibility Study to explore applying for Funding for some form of gov't approved "mystery muck" that will probably be served at a location that the majority of those un-served homeless can't possibly get to.

Without a very flexible sense of humor and an open mind it's hard to have conversations in 2016's America. It seems everyone is just itching for an argument. I hear, "You Republicans..." just as much as I hear, "You Democrats..." thrown in with plenty of bitterness about how "Moderates, Libertarians and Independents" are just voters without enough spine to find their spot and take a stand. The latter example has recently started to take on the implication that what is perceived as indecision is part of what is allowing the country to go down the tubes.

I never was and never will be a "One & Done" voter. Votes may not make much difference in the system we've got, but even a protest vote takes some intelligence and forethought. I was raised on a farm and I know for a Fact that a chicken could be taught to reliably vote a clearly labeled straight ticket...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You shouldn't complain.

Paying taxes is just the same as feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless.

Even though people will go hungry and stay homeless.

Except for politicians. They'll be well fed and have nice homes.

I agree with OP. LesMisanhtrope Identified the common style of rebuttal from Lefties, often implicit but also often babbled.

"You don't care, are greedy, and ignorant" says Liberal Poster. That might be true in some cases, but Liberals have no arguments from reason. Liberals know their beliefs are true, and all should submit.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

The lefties I know are very vocal in the idea that their tax money should be spent on the above.
That's why they will vote for Hillary/Sander's/Corbyn, or support(ed) Obama/Miliband etc

Vocal on the idea, are they checking to see if it's happening?

If a lefty wants me to spend $50 in taxes and I want to spend $100 not through taxes why am I wrong and them right? Why does it have to come from the government to count?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

It's emotional. It's always emotional.

Rebuttals like, "Don't you feel for X, Y, Z?"

Caring, feeling, you want more than others, you don't have empathy, . . . . and my favorite, "You aren't enlightened".

Great OP LesMisanthrope. Pearls before swine though I fear. The left are modern day Eloy but they have been bred to be so. Mass media for generations has warped their perceptions to the point that they cannot be broken until they experience the results for themselves.

Leftist are the friend that always ends up in bad relationships. They ignore the warning signs because things feel good at first. Never mind he doesn't have a job, has 4 other kids with different women that he doesn't take care of, a criminal record. Things will be different this time. They can just change this person and make them better. Their idealism prevents them from seeing things as they are and instead they perceive the world as "how it ought to be" based on nothing more than feelings. We all know how it ends. The only thing that changes them is the hard dose of reality that comes with being beaten and broken by experience.

I found reldra's quip about the post being reminiscent of the 1890s kind of funny because in her defense it did remind me of an old rebuttal from G.K. Chesterton to George Bernard Shaw but in your defense I would take that as a compliment.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Semicollegiate

It's emotional. It's always emotional.

Rebuttals like, "Don't you feel for X, Y, Z?"

Caring, feeling, you want more than others, you don't have empathy, . . . . and my favorite, "You aren't enlightened".

You said enlightenment so watched this again


To a Liberal, Enlightenment means no requirement for thinking, or anything else.