Tea Parties Wrong On Constitution

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by EJR914, Oct 27, 2010.

  1. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    Check out this piece of work...

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/17/how- ... wrong.html

    This is my FAVORITE little gem from this wonderful article:

    Emphasis mine. Cass Sustein A CENTRIST?!?!! :rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2: That is the most utter nonsense I have ever read in my life.

    Its hard to believe the would even publish such drivel in Newsweek. You really have to be careful when reading through some of these articles these days.

    Ohh, and by the way... if some of those were found to be unconstitutional, that would be just fine with me.
     
  2. TippinTaco

    TippinTaco New Member

    4,447
    0
    0
    i agree with you, at this day and age its time to just call it quits on some of these programs that have been long over due to be stopped. Welfare, social security, government funded health insurance. These programs, designed with the best intentions and hopes, failed horribly the moment people figured a way to cheat the system. The same people who run these systems are the ones who choose personally who should and shouldnt receive these types of programs. I say stop them all. Social security? HA! Why in the @#[email protected]#$ should i continue to pay for something thats not going to exist much longer and when or if I ever applied for it there wont be any left?!? Theres people that literally sit around on their deadbeat butts and absorb social security and welfare. They won't work another day in their life because the system pays for it all. It's up to me as a husband and provider to build my retirement and hope for the best that it exists when that time comes, I shouldn't nor should anyone else expect the government to pay for our retirement through the use of stupid underfunded soon to be obsolete programs...
     

  3. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    Social Security, such as it is, should definitely be eliminated.
    The idea that you could pay into a system (Note: not "your account", since you have none) and then have no control of those monies if you pass prematurely is unconscionable. It should be Your Money, if you want to retire early and receive lesser benefits, or no benefit at all, that should be up to you. If you pass early, it should be part of your estate, not the property of the government.
    As it is, social security is closer to insurance than an investment, and everybody knows that on the average you pay more for insurance than you would pay if you covered your own expenses. The only valid reason for insurance is for catastrophic losses that would severely disrupt life if not taken care of.
     
  4. samman23

    samman23 New Member

    1,679
    0
    0
    Is Cass Sustein the animal rights guy that believes that animals should sue humans?
     
  5. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    Not sure about any involvement with PETA, but he has argued that the internet man weaken democracy and is a supporter of the "Second Bill of Rights" which includes -
    * Employment, with a living wage,
    * Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
    * Housing,
    * Medical care,
    * Education, and,
    * Social security

    Just how do you guarantee housing? Does the government give you a house that is paid for taxing/taking away the labors of everyone else in the country? Why do they have a 'right' to the fruits of Your labor? If housing is a 'right' then it can't be denied and there is absolutely no incentive to work and afford it since it will be 'given' to you.
     
  6. RecoveringYankee

    RecoveringYankee New Member

    1,771
    0
    0
    Newsweek stopped being a traditional reporter of news a couple years back. They are more a commentary and viewpoint magazine now. It was the direction they chose to go.

    Not that I agree with their opinions, but they no longer make any pretext of not having one.
     
  7. Viking

    Viking New Member

    219
    0
    0
    Perhaps Cass isn't speaking about the U.S. Constitution? :screwy:

    Freaks from the ivory towers are now running the show and they want socialism and communism. They need to go.
     
  8. CoolHand

    CoolHand Active Member

    2,182
    6
    38
    Yes.
     
  9. CR2008

    CR2008 New Member

    674
    0
    0

    I agree with you somewhat... but I certainly don't believe these programs were set up with "best intentions." How good is a person's intentions to set up an obvious PONZI scheme like SS, hell, I am not math wizard and I have seen how it could not work... only the dull minded would buy into this piramid scheme... also, "privitizing" SS and sending it to the pigs in wallstreet to handle is no better, either way you WILL BE CHEATED. For this reason I have to save for my own retirement, why trust fools?

    Also, it's not a "good intention" when the welfare system literally incurages people to not do anything usefull with their lives, look on the requirments to collect welfare, does it contain anything like going back to school to get an education or community survice? It's set up to BUY AND KEEP VOTERS, politicians can use welfare as a tool to keep dependents in line because if it's cut, these people can't stand on their own 2 feet.

    IMHO, many of these government programs are tricks and tools to keep the masses in line... and Obama care is the most recent example.
     
  10. BSCLibertarian

    BSCLibertarian I'm kind of a big deal

    5,243
    1
    38
     
  11. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    :righton:
     
  12. RecoveringYankee

    RecoveringYankee New Member

    1,771
    0
    0
    I agree with almost all you said. I am not counting on SS existing as it does now when I retire in 15-20 years. But the politicians will never do away with it entirely. That said, I would rather the people have some say in how it is invested, rather than leaving it to the politicians who have so screwed it.

    The so-called privatization was never about just "sending it" to Wall Street. It would let you decide, to some degree, how to invest a small portion of money, to raise the amount that you could collect at the end. Investing in companies is not sending it to Wall Street. They are all across the country, and have factories in cities and towns employing people. Their shareholders are overwhelmingly working people saving for their own retirement rather than relying on government to do it for them.

    Again, not defending SS. Just stating the reality that it will continue to exist in some form, and we should try to make it a form that has a better chance of working than what it is now.