Why Conservatives are Happy and Leftists Are Angry

Except for the reality that the Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring the general welfare of the Union of States, not the individual welfare of everyone residing in any of them. The welfare of the citizens of Colorado is a Colorado concern, not a New York one, not a California one. The other States have the welfare of their own citizens to tend to and how they decide to do that should be decided at that level, not a central one.

PrintSmith wrote: Except for the reality that the Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring the general welfare of the Union of States, not the individual welfare of everyone residing in any of them. The welfare of the citizens of Colorado is a Colorado concern, not a New York one, not a California one. The other States have the welfare of their own citizens to tend to and how they decide to do that should be decided at that level, not a central one.

For the most part, I concede you are correct in your assertion. That being said, I also offer this article which both supports your assertion and goes into a little bit of detail on a SCOTUS ruling regarding Social Security and unemployment benefits.

www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html

I'm quite familiar with the SCOTUS ruling regarding Social Security that was issued in the wake of FDR and the Senate threatening to add as many justices to the court as it took to prevent their unconstitutional agenda from being stopped by the high court.

Are you familiar with the early 1960's ruling which tells us all that Social Security is an annual tax levy and an annual appropriation of Congress and that the citizens who pay those taxes have no personal property right to any of those funds?

PrintSmith wrote: I'm quite familiar with the SCOTUS ruling regarding Social Security that was issued in the wake of FDR and the Senate threatening to add as many justices to the court as it took to prevent their unconstitutional agenda from being stopped by the high court.

Are you familiar with the early 1960's ruling which tells us all that Social Security is an annual tax levy and an annual appropriation of Congress and that the citizens who pay those taxes have no personal property right to any of those funds?

Link? I'll definitely read up on it, but would appreciate a link.

Which is another way of saying that no, I've never heard that, right?

PrintSmith wrote: Which is another way of saying that no, I've never heard that, right?

So what? At least I'm willing to learn.

PrintSmith wrote: Which is another way of saying that no, I've never heard that, right?

And that, in a nutshell, is a primary reason why I choose not to engage very often with you.

PrintSmith wrote: Which is another way of saying that no, I've never heard that, right?

Hmmm, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but what is so difficult about providing a link to the source of information, in order to further the discussion? Others, like me, who are reading the discussion may also be interested in the source of the information, so we can learn more.

IMO, a snarky response such as that may make you feel better, but it adds nothing to the discussion.

What, precisely, do you wish to have a link to. Substantiation that FDR and the New Dealers threatened to pack the court if the court kept overturning their unconstitutional legislation? Type in FDR and court packing in your browser search window and see what you come up with. Same for no right to the appropriations of Congress. Type it in and see where it leads you. I'll point you in the right direction though. The case before SCOTUS was Flemming v Nestor in which the Supreme Court of this Union said that there was no contractual obligation created by the payment of the income taxes withheld from your wages to fund Social Security for that year. Congress, and Congress alone, decides what, if any, individual subsidy you are entitled to receive from that fund. Congress could abolish the program tomorrow because it is fiscally unsustainable and there is not a single dime that would be owed to you by the federal government for all the years you paid taxes to support current beneficiaries under the program. When SCOTUS ruled it constitutional they did so by saying that the program was an annual tax levy and an annual appropriation of Congress. That case was Helvering v Davis.

The reality here is that I did my research before I formed an opinion instead of forming an opinion and then seeking out those who agreed with me for confirmation. Perhaps that is why you choose not to engage me very often. Your feelings are regularly demonstrated to be a poor substitute for facts when you do engage me.

PrintSmith wrote: What, precisely, do you wish to have a link to. Substantiation that FDR and the New Dealers threatened to pack the court if the court kept overturning their unconstitutional legislation? Type in FDR and court packing in your browser search window and see what you come up with. Same for no right to the appropriations of Congress. Type it in and see where it leads you. I'll point you in the right direction though. The case before SCOTUS was Flemming v Nestor in which the Supreme Court of this Union said that there was no contractual obligation created by the payment of the income taxes withheld from your wages to fund Social Security for that year. Congress, and Congress alone, decides what, if any, individual subsidy you are entitled to receive from that fund. Congress could abolish the program tomorrow because it is fiscally unsustainable and there is not a single dime that would be owed to you by the federal government for all the years you paid taxes to support current beneficiaries under the program. When SCOTUS ruled it constitutional they did so by saying that the program was an annual tax levy and an annual appropriation of Congress. That case was Helvering v Davis.

The reality here is that I did my research before I formed an opinion instead of forming an opinion and then seeking out those who agreed with me for confirmation. Perhaps that is why you choose not to engage me very often. Your feelings are regularly demonstrated to be a poor substitute for facts when you do engage me.

I repeat - And that, in a nutshell, is a primary reason why I choose not to engage very often with you.