Social Security and Medicare are OFF THE TABLE!

LadyJazzer wrote: I think we are saying the same thing... Remove the cap on the employee's portion, but leave it in-place for the employer. That seems fair to me.

Indeed. Why tell the citizens the truth, that you are raising their taxes, when you can play a shell game, hide the tax and tell them you are only raising taxes on the evil corporations which employ them.

PrintSmith. You are one of the historians here. I just discovered an interesting fact about what President Roosevelt tried to do to push the passage of his SS act and the New Deal...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

In the 1930s, the Supreme Court struck down many pieces of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, including the Railroad Retirement Act. The Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and New York State's minimum-wage law. President Roosevelt responded with an attempt to pack the court via the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. On February 5, 1937, he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire.[21] The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court [bringing total judges to 15] (and 44 judges to lower federal courts), thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor.

The bill stalled and didn't pass because Roosevelt was able to get the New Deal though by less extreme means. But wow! He was trying to do something in this country that a Hugo Chavaz or two bit dictator would do to keep in power.

Anyway, an interesting piece of history, to me at least...

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: I think we are saying the same thing... Remove the cap on the employee's portion, but leave it in-place for the employer. That seems fair to me.

Indeed. Why tell the citizens the truth, that you are raising their taxes, when you can play a shell game, hide the tax and tell them you are only raising taxes on the evil corporations which employ them.

Who said anything about "hiding the truth"? I want them to KNOW that they are being taxed their fair share. Duh! :VeryScared:

pineinthegrass wrote: PrintSmith. You are one of the historians here. I just discovered an interesting fact about what President Roosevelt tried to do to push the passage of his SS act and the New Deal...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

In the 1930s, the Supreme Court struck down many pieces of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, including the Railroad Retirement Act. The Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and New York State's minimum-wage law. President Roosevelt responded with an attempt to pack the court via the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. On February 5, 1937, he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire.[21] The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court [bringing total judges to 15] (and 44 judges to lower federal courts), thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor.

The bill stalled and didn't pass because Roosevelt was able to get the New Deal though by less extreme means. But wow! He was trying to do something in this country that a Hugo Chavaz or two bit dictator would do to keep in power.

Anyway, an interesting piece of history, to me at least...

The infamous Switch in Time that Saved Nine that ultimately resulted in the justices of the Supreme Court ignoring the Constitution and ruling the SS program constitutional in an effort to protect the co-equal judiciary branch of the federal government from being destroyed by the Democrats in Congress and the White House. Ironically, that dictatorial maneuver was largely responsible for the Democrats losing their super majority in both houses of Congress in the next elections and opened the door for the tax cutting and slashing of the federal budget that finally allowed the nation to emerge from the tentacles of the Great Depression. Truman wanted to continue to push the FDR agenda after taking the reins of the presidency in the wake of FDR's death in the arms of his mistress, but Congress would have none of it and did precisely the opposite - they rejected the FDR Keynesian demand side policies that Obama is attempting yet again, in favor of the supply side approach.

The election after that saw both houses of Congress switch to Republican control and a Republican elected to the presidency in the election held 4 years after that.

Interesting, is it not, that this was never part of the civics classes that is taught to the posterity of the nation in their public education classrooms.

PrintSmith wrote: Interesting, is it not, that this was never part of the civics classes that is taught to the posterity of the nation in their public education classrooms.

While I've heard the term "switch in time that saved nine", I don't recall ever learning about it in school. Then again I majored in a science. But we were pretty much taught that Roosevelt was one of our great presidents.

Here's a guy that sent 110,000 Japanese-Americans (62% of them US citizens) into internment camps and caused the loss of much of their property (we were taught that). He got confidential information on them through the Census Bureau which was denied for decades. And now we see how he tried to change all the federal courts including the Supreme Court into Democrat puppets. I know times were different back then, but this makes anything George Bush has been accused of by Democrats today look like nothing in comparison.

Still, I think he did a lot of good during a very difficult time as well. And for a federal program, I actually think Social Security has been pretty successful. Back then, 50% of seniors lived in poverty. That number is now around 9% and is still dropping. You could say that 50% was due to the Depression, but I've read that if you take away all Social Security right now, we'd go back to having 50% of seniors living in poverty. Not a good thought, IMO...

Thank you... I'm not ready to see 50%+ of seniors living in poverty and without health care again either...