President in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: chrisms
I take that line to mean the government can't contract a company or individual to do something, and afterwards refuse to pay them. I don't see that happening with this Social Security quote...

he is questioning whether the government will reay its debts to Social Security. He's basically saying that the US will not repay its debts.

NO HE IS NOT. Read it again, closely.

The government has to, by law, repay its "debt" to SS. That's not in question. The question is the IOU to citizens, which is basically the promise of SS as it currently exists when people reach the age of retirement. THAT'S the IOU he is talking about.

iow, Bush is questioning the government's promise of SS to its citizenry, and has absoultely nothing to do with the treasury, questioning the debt, or anything of the sort.

If people could read in here, they'd see that plainly and stop this ridiculous, BS strawman of a claim concerning a violation of the consitution. It's idiotic.

 

[SuperTool]

IOU=debt. So government IOU = government debt. Questioning government IOU = Questioning government debt. Bush is in violation of the constitution.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
IOU=debt. So government IOU = government debt. Questioning government IOU = Questioning government debt. Bush is in violation of the constitution.

He didn't say government IOU. Here's what he said. Please pay close attention:

The government takes your money and spends it on other things and puts an IOU, a piece of paper, on your behalf, which may be worth something, and it may not be worth something."

Once again, his convoluted statement is about the debt of SS to the people and it's solvency in the future, not the debt of the government to SS, which is protected by law anyway and is not in question.

 

[glenn1]

IOU=debt. So government IOU = government debt. Questioning government IOU = Questioning government debt. Bush is in violation of the constitution.

Okay, we'll try it another way. I agree to buy an item from you today for $20, you will deliver it tomorrow at which time I'll pay you. Basically you have an IOU from me and I have a future obligation from you to deliver my item. No value has exchanged hands. Hopefully you're with me so far.

Let's say the item gets stolen from you, or you give it away to your son, or just decide to sell it to someone else. Obviously I'm not going to get it delivered to me tomorrow, so your "future obligation" has been removed. In turn since the obligation no longer exists, my IOU is worthless as well. Again, no value changes hands.


Substitute "social security payments" for item, Special Issue Treasury for IOU, and "Congress revokes Social Security" for the item gets stolen from you.

 

[Passions]

Save the BS propaganda for your postings at treemonger.com

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SuperTool
IOU=debt. So government IOU = government debt. Questioning government IOU = Questioning government debt. Bush is in violation of the constitution.

He didn't say government IOU. Here's what he said. Please pay close attention:

The government takes your money and spends it on other things and puts an IOU, a piece of paper, on your behalf, which may be worth something, and it may not be worth something."

Once again, his concoluted statement is about the debt of SS to the people and it's solvency in the future, not the debt of the government to SS, which is protected by law anyway and is not in question.

The republicans have been quesitoning the trustfund of social security which is government IOUs to SS.
It's an IOU by the US government, just as US government bonds. That's what a government bond is, a piece of paper IOU. So if the president says it "may not be worth something," he is questioning government debt, which is in violation of the constitution.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: conjur
Saying a US Treasury bond may not be worth something is questioning the validity of that debt.

this is to both conjur and supertool:

no, that would be questiing the ability to pay a debt. Questioning the validity of a debt means to question whether a debt is a valid debt (should it be payed). You need to study what the language of the constitution actually means. Its not as bad as shakespeare but legalize is not lay persons speak.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SuperTool
IOU=debt. So government IOU = government debt. Questioning government IOU = Questioning government debt. Bush is in violation of the constitution.

He didn't say government IOU. Here's what he said. Please pay close attention:

The government takes your money and spends it on other things and puts an IOU, a piece of paper, on your behalf, which may be worth something, and it may not be worth something."

Once again, his concoluted statement is about the debt of SS to the people and it's solvency in the future, not the debt of the government to SS, which is protected by law anyway and is not in question.

The republicans have been quesitoning the trustfund of social security which is government IOUs to SS.
It's an IOU by the US government, just as US government bonds. That's what a government bond is, a piece of paper IOU. So if the president says it "may not be worth something," he is questioning government debt, which is in violation of the constitution.

Yes, the Republicans have been questioning the SOLVENCY of this trust fund. In its current incarnation it will not be able to sustain SS beyond a certain date. That is well known. From the FAQ posted earlier:

As stated in the answer to "What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds?", most of the money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the current increase in the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 35 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.

The SS "government" IOUs are protected by law. There is no issue in that. The issue that Bush is posing is the issue of the people's money, which they are putting in now and getting an IOU from the government that may or may not be good in the future because of the solvency issues of SS.

Once again, Bush is not questioning the US debt. He is questioning the sovlency of SS and the IOU to the PEOPLE who are putting money into that fund at this time.

I've a feeling I'll be talking till I'm blue in the face to get some folks with their ears plugged in here to comprehend the semantic differences in this case though. They seemingly do not want to comprehend, which does not surprise me at all. Anything for smoke and mirrors ranting, eh?

 

[SuperTool]

Seems like you feel strongly that the president is not in violation of the constitution. I think he, and a lot of Republicans are in violation, especially when they ridicule the IOUs in the SS trustfund as if they are worthless.
Projected SS benefits are not the same as IOU. The only IOUs in SS are those in the trustfund, so I don't buy this excuse that he was talking about SS' IOUs to the retirees, because there are none.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seems like you feel strongly that the president is not in violation of the constitution. I think he, and a lot of Republicans are in violation, especially when they ridicule the IOUs in the SS trustfund as if they are worthless.
Projected SS benefits are not the same as IOU. The only IOUs in SS are those in the trustfund, so I don't buy this excuse that he was talking about SS' IOUs to the retirees, because there are none.

He wasn't. You're confused about what "validity of the public debt" means. It means whether the debt is owed, not how it was incurred or how hard it is to pay. He questioned how hard it is to pay.

Questioning the validity of the debt would go along the lines of "we don't really need to pay back that 20 billion we borrowed from the japanese from the treasusry bonds we sold them. "

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seems like you feel strongly that the president is not in violation of the constitution. I think he, and a lot of Republicans are in violation, especially when they ridicule the IOUs in the SS trustfund as if they are worthless.
Projected SS benefits are not the same as IOU. The only IOUs in SS are those in the trustfund, so I don't buy this excuse that he was talking about SS' IOUs to the retirees, because there are none.

And the above cites exactly where you are wrong.

The president is not ridiculing the IOUs in the trust fund; the securities backing the assets. He is ridiculing the IOUs to the people, i.e. - their future benefits that have been promised based on their present and past payments (IOUs). After all, that's basically what the government is doing. They are taking your money now for a promise of future remittance. For some that remittance may not come about and therefore that IOU could be worthless.

Other than the president's convoluted manner of stating this, I can't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seems like you feel strongly that the president is not in violation of the constitution. I think he, and a lot of Republicans are in violation, especially when they ridicule the IOUs in the SS trustfund as if they are worthless.
Projected SS benefits are not the same as IOU. The only IOUs in SS are those in the trustfund, so I don't buy this excuse that he was talking about SS' IOUs to the retirees, because there are none.

And the above cites exactly where you are wrong.

The president is not ridiculing the IOUs in the trust fund; the securities backing the assets. He is ridiculing the IOUs to the people, i.e. - their future benefits that have been promised based on their present and past payments (IOUs). After all, that's basically what the government is doing. They are taking your money now for a promise of future remittance. For some that remittance may not come about and therefore that IOU could be worthless.

Other than the president's convoluted manner of stating this, I can't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Regardless of what or how the Shrub said it.... he's dead wrong about Social Security and he knows it.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Constitution? What's that?

Seems to be a valid question nowadays.

Sadly true.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seems like you feel strongly that the president is not in violation of the constitution. I think he, and a lot of Republicans are in violation, especially when they ridicule the IOUs in the SS trustfund as if they are worthless.
Projected SS benefits are not the same as IOU. The only IOUs in SS are those in the trustfund, so I don't buy this excuse that he was talking about SS' IOUs to the retirees, because there are none.

And the above cites exactly where you are wrong.

The president is not ridiculing the IOUs in the trust fund; the securities backing the assets. He is ridiculing the IOUs to the people, i.e. - their future benefits that have been promised based on their present and past payments (IOUs). After all, that's basically what the government is doing. They are taking your money now for a promise of future remittance. For some that remittance may not come about and therefore that IOU could be worthless.

Other than the president's convoluted manner of stating this, I can't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Regardless of what or how the Shrub said it.... he's dead wrong about Social Security and he knows it.

maybe, but I don't see where he has any options. Away from this board, I don't know a single repbulican that's willing to drop the SS benefit amount or increase the tax rate to pay for benefits. That only leaves 2 options, increase the cap on the taxable salary amount (which he allready tried and was rejected by his republican peers) or increase the retirement age. Increasing the retirement age is not satisfactory for eliminating all of the SS shortfall. So basically his own party is making it impossible to fix the SS shortfall.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seems like you feel strongly that the president is not in violation of the constitution. I think he, and a lot of Republicans are in violation, especially when they ridicule the IOUs in the SS trustfund as if they are worthless.
Projected SS benefits are not the same as IOU. The only IOUs in SS are those in the trustfund, so I don't buy this excuse that he was talking about SS' IOUs to the retirees, because there are none.

And the above cites exactly where you are wrong.

The president is not ridiculing the IOUs in the trust fund; the securities backing the assets. He is ridiculing the IOUs to the people, i.e. - their future benefits that have been promised based on their present and past payments (IOUs). After all, that's basically what the government is doing. They are taking your money now for a promise of future remittance. For some that remittance may not come about and therefore that IOU could be worthless.

Other than the president's convoluted manner of stating this, I can't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Regardless of what or how the Shrub said it.... he's dead wrong about Social Security and he knows it.

maybe, but I don't see where he has any options. Away from this board, I don't know a single repbulican that's willing to drop the SS benefit amount or increase the tax rate to pay for benefits. That only leaves 2 options, increase the cap on the taxable salary amount (which he allready tried and was rejected by his republican peers) or increase the retirement age. Increasing the retirement age is not satisfactory for eliminating all of the SS shortfall. So basically his own party is making it impossible to fix the SS shortfall.

Remove the cap, but on this basis:

Numbers are changeable (this is just an example)

$90k - $120k: 12.4%
$120k-$150k: 11.6%
$150k-$200k: 10.8%
$200k-$250k: 10.0%

etc, etc... until it gets into the millions, then the percentage would be miniscule.

Also, reverse the benefits received in the same manner.

 

[Genx87]

Wow, another stretch job by Conjur.

Funny how when you call him on his crap he tells you that you are the propoganda machine.

The last two days has been nothing but garbage fulf of leftist propoganda.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seems like you feel strongly that the president is not in violation of the constitution. I think he, and a lot of Republicans are in violation, especially when they ridicule the IOUs in the SS trustfund as if they are worthless.
Projected SS benefits are not the same as IOU. The only IOUs in SS are those in the trustfund, so I don't buy this excuse that he was talking about SS' IOUs to the retirees, because there are none.

And the above cites exactly where you are wrong.

The president is not ridiculing the IOUs in the trust fund; the securities backing the assets. He is ridiculing the IOUs to the people, i.e. - their future benefits that have been promised based on their present and past payments (IOUs). After all, that's basically what the government is doing. They are taking your money now for a promise of future remittance. For some that remittance may not come about and therefore that IOU could be worthless.

Other than the president's convoluted manner of stating this, I can't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Regardless of what or how the Shrub said it.... he's dead wrong about Social Security and he knows it.

maybe, but I don't see where he has any options. Away from this board, I don't know a single repbulican that's willing to drop the SS benefit amount or increase the tax rate to pay for benefits. That only leaves 2 options, increase the cap on the taxable salary amount (which he allready tried and was rejected by his republican peers) or increase the retirement age. Increasing the retirement age is not satisfactory for eliminating all of the SS shortfall. So basically his own party is making it impossible to fix the SS shortfall.

Remove the cap, but on this basis:

Numbers are changeable (this is just an example)

$90k - $120k: 12.4%
$120k-$150k: 11.6%
$150k-$200k: 10.8%
$200k-$250k: 10.0%

etc, etc... until it gets into the millions, then the percentage would be miniscule.

Also, reverse the benefits received in the same manner.

SS is not a progressive tax scheme. Leave it at 12.6% all the way upto infinity. The cap is really kind of silly but I kind of see the point. If business's had to shell out 6.3% of a 200,000 salary, it will start to add up on the bottom line and hamper their ability to do business.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seems like you feel strongly that the president is not in violation of the constitution. I think he, and a lot of Republicans are in violation, especially when they ridicule the IOUs in the SS trustfund as if they are worthless.
Projected SS benefits are not the same as IOU. The only IOUs in SS are those in the trustfund, so I don't buy this excuse that he was talking about SS' IOUs to the retirees, because there are none.

And the above cites exactly where you are wrong.

The president is not ridiculing the IOUs in the trust fund; the securities backing the assets. He is ridiculing the IOUs to the people, i.e. - their future benefits that have been promised based on their present and past payments (IOUs). After all, that's basically what the government is doing. They are taking your money now for a promise of future remittance. For some that remittance may not come about and therefore that IOU could be worthless.

Other than the president's convoluted manner of stating this, I can't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Regardless of what or how the Shrub said it.... he's dead wrong about Social Security and he knows it.

maybe, but I don't see where he has any options. Away from this board, I don't know a single repbulican that's willing to drop the SS benefit amount or increase the tax rate to pay for benefits. That only leaves 2 options, increase the cap on the taxable salary amount (which he allready tried and was rejected by his republican peers) or increase the retirement age. Increasing the retirement age is not satisfactory for eliminating all of the SS shortfall. So basically his own party is making it impossible to fix the SS shortfall.

Remove the cap, but on this basis:

Numbers are changeable (this is just an example)

$90k - $120k: 12.4%
$120k-$150k: 11.6%
$150k-$200k: 10.8%
$200k-$250k: 10.0%

etc, etc... until it gets into the millions, then the percentage would be miniscule.

Also, reverse the benefits received in the same manner.

But his own party would never go for either of those changes. Like I said they want a fix that doesn't cost them anything extra in taxes and doesn't cost them anything in lost benefits.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur
Note that the Propagandist was seen the other day holding some US Treasury bonds in Parkersburg, W.V. That's what he's saying "may not be worth something"

I'm going to need some proof of this, Conjur. IF this is true, then he should be impeached. The debt of the US government is secured SOLELY by the good faith and credit of the United States government. This is why it is illegal for a government employee or official to question its validity, either present or future.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Seems like you feel strongly that the president is not in violation of the constitution. I think he, and a lot of Republicans are in violation, especially when they ridicule the IOUs in the SS trustfund as if they are worthless.
Projected SS benefits are not the same as IOU. The only IOUs in SS are those in the trustfund, so I don't buy this excuse that he was talking about SS' IOUs to the retirees, because there are none.

And the above cites exactly where you are wrong.

The president is not ridiculing the IOUs in the trust fund; the securities backing the assets. He is ridiculing the IOUs to the people, i.e. - their future benefits that have been promised based on their present and past payments (IOUs). After all, that's basically what the government is doing. They are taking your money now for a promise of future remittance. For some that remittance may not come about and therefore that IOU could be worthless.

Other than the president's convoluted manner of stating this, I can't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Regardless of what or how the Shrub said it.... he's dead wrong about Social Security and he knows it.

maybe, but I don't see where he has any options. Away from this board, I don't know a single repbulican that's willing to drop the SS benefit amount or increase the tax rate to pay for benefits. That only leaves 2 options, increase the cap on the taxable salary amount (which he allready tried and was rejected by his republican peers) or increase the retirement age. Increasing the retirement age is not satisfactory for eliminating all of the SS shortfall. So basically his own party is making it impossible to fix the SS shortfall.

Remove the cap, but on this basis:

Numbers are changeable (this is just an example)

$90k - $120k: 12.4%
$120k-$150k: 11.6%
$150k-$200k: 10.8%
$200k-$250k: 10.0%

etc, etc... until it gets into the millions, then the percentage would be miniscule.

Also, reverse the benefits received in the same manner.

But his won party would never go for either of those changes. Like I said they want a fix that doesn't cost them anything extra in taxes and doesn't cost them anything in lost benefits.

Bush's plan reduces benefits and nor does it help with the program's solvency, PLUS adds trillions to the national debt. But I'm sure you're aware of that.

So again, why is he doing it?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Wow, another stretch job by Conjur.

Funny how when you call him on his crap he tells you that you are the propoganda machine.

The last two days has been nothing but garbage fulf of leftist propoganda.

Hes not helping the liberal cause with this junk. He needs to get back to real debates.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Note that the Propagandist was seen the other day holding some US Treasury bonds in Parkersburg, W.V. That's what he's saying "may not be worth something"

I'm going to need some proof of this, Conjur. IF this is true, then he should be impeached. The debt of the US government is secured SOLELY by the good faith and credit of the United States government. This is why it is illegal for a government employee or official to question its validity, either present or future.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050405/i/r1914161670.jpg

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Bush's plan reduces benefits and nor does it help with the program's solvency, PLUS adds trillions to the national debt. But I'm sure you're aware of that.

So again, why is he doing it?

Paying back Merril Lynch for its contributions to his campaign.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Bush's plan reduces benefits and nor does it help with the program's solvency, PLUS adds trillions to the national debt. But I'm sure you're aware of that.

So again, why is he doing it?

It doesn't reduce benefits if you buy into the belief that personal accounts will make up the shortfall and cost less the finance in the long term. Republicans seem ok with adding to the debt. That's why he's doing it. He can get it passed by his party. I'm fully aware of the facts. His position shouldn't come as a suprise to you given the limitations his own party has put on him to solve this problem.

 

[conjur]

Bush questions worth of Social Security trust fund
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11318132.htm

WASHINGTON - Using a government filing cabinet as a prop, President Bush on Tuesday played to fears that the Social Security Trust Fund is little more than a stack of worthless IOUs.

But if the IOUs are worthless, so is the "full faith and credit" of the federal government, independent financial analysts said. The reality is a little more complicated than Bush acknowledged, and it goes to the heart of the debate over Social Security's future.

Experts say both sides in the debate over Social Security mischaracterize the trust fund's worth to make the case that the retirement system is essentially sound, as many Democrats contend, or that it's on the verge of crisis, which is Bush's message.

"I don't like the Democrats saying everything is fine any more than I like the Republicans saying, `House on fire! House on fire!' The truth is somewhere in the middle," said Timothy Smeeding, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Bush visited the Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, W.Va., on Tuesday to highlight the fact that there's no actual cash in the trust fund, even though Social Security has piled up a $1.7 trillion surplus since it was created in the late 1930s. Payroll taxes collected from workers have exceeded benefits paid to retirees every year since 1984.

Instead of socking the surplus away, the government spent it on other programs and promised to repay it later, with interest. The IOUs are in the form of special-issue Treasury bonds that are stored in an off-white, four-drawer filing cabinet in West Virginia.

"There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay," Bush said after inspecting the storage site. "Imagine - the retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet."