Thursday, October 22, 2009

No Silver Lining

Andy McCarthy:
What they're trying to establish is the power to control compensation levels, period. In fact, more and more Democrats are making the insane argument that doing this, and much, much more, is within Congress's purportedly limitless constitutional power to "promote the general welfare." This is really scary stuff, and I'm afraid I don't see a silver lining.

I'm gonna plagiarize Mark Levin here. Mark has been recounting how, when FDR foisted social security on the country, his administration told the public it was an insurance program.
Good fucking god this man is right. There was no upside to Social Security at all.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicImage and video hosting by TinyPicImage and video hosting by TinyPicImage and video hosting by TinyPic

10 comments:

herr doktor bimler said...

No upside?! Imagine trying to run databases on everyone without a SSN!

ckc (not kc) said...

pay the money? call the shots!

herr doktor bimler said...

In that case, I'll have a Danska OP Vodka.

M. Bouffant said...

This is really scary stuff, and I'm afraid I don't see a silver lining.

Anyone past puberty who uses the word "scary" has instantly trivialized any argument made.

And make mine an impor.

M. Bouffant said...

"Foisting:" Better or worse than "shoving down the throat?"

fish said...

Mark has been recounting how, when FDR foisted social security on the country, his administration told the public it was an insurance program.

And millions of seniors, outraged at the deception, have refused to cash the checks. They have moved to Galt Gulch, mostly because they heard that their all-you-can-eat buffet is much better than the Ponderosa.

J— said...

I used to be a Democrat, but thanks to Obama's election, I'm outraged by FDR's Solicitor General's argument before the Supreme Court that social security is a tax.

Dragon-King Wangchuck said...

Helvering v Davis is amusing because it shows that even back in 1937, wingnuts were ever so eloquent. This is what appears at the bottom of a multi-page Supreme Court decision:
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS and MR. JUSTICE BUTLER are of opinion that the provisions of the act here challenged are repugnant to the Tenth Amendment, and that the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals should be affirmed.

I suspect McREYNOLDS and BUTLER were teabagging when they wrote that.

Rusty Shackleford said...

One of the only things I remember from Federal Income Tax Law is "never quote the Helvering case."

Substance McGravitas said...

That, I think, is what's going on with the pay czar . . . and health-care "reform" . . . and auto-company takeovers . . . and government taking equity positions in banks . . . and . . . and . . . and . . .

The larger part of what is going on was that the country started slipping down the toilet hole. Also.