SS/medicaire...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Yeah...
Hell, I'd love to see a spreadsheet showing potential income tax revenue from various return on investment scenarios. The market, over time, has averaged what, 10%?
You start adding in economic growth from those investment dollars and associated jobs and income taxes instead of those same dollars going to simple subsistence, there's a point where it becomes a sort of perpetual motion machine.
Then, as people age and can't risk a downturn, start moving their portfolio more and more to governemnt securities.
Hell, I'd love to see a spreadsheet showing potential income tax revenue from various return on investment scenarios. The market, over time, has averaged what, 10%?
You start adding in economic growth from those investment dollars and associated jobs and income taxes instead of those same dollars going to simple subsistence, there's a point where it becomes a sort of perpetual motion machine.
Then, as people age and can't risk a downturn, start moving their portfolio more and more to governemnt securities.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I like the idea of means testing for SS benefits. Yes, the rich would be paying into the system and getting nothing out of it, but how many childless people pay school taxes even though they have no kids? I think that SS is the price our country should pay for living up to the adage - the country needs ditch diggers too. This country needs ditch diggers, janitors, shoe salesmen, and many other low-mid salary people working everyday. These people will never make enough to support themselves in retirement, yet without them the country couldn't get by. So I think this is one case where it's worth the investment to take care of our own. To me, SS isn't a handout that rewards poor behavior or bad judgement like welfare and child-rearing money, it's a reward for years of hard work. And if it takes people who don't need the money to give it up to someone who does, I see no problem with that.
I know I'm swatting a hornets nest here, but can someone please show me in the Constitution where the Federal government is empowered to institute SS and expend funds for it? Rhetorical question. You can't. There isn't anyplace. SS is un-Constitutional. So is Medicare, welfare, and lots of other programs and agencies. Sorry.
It's in the Preamble, under "promote the general welfare".2ndAmendment said:
Just because something isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Conversely, just because it's in the Constitution doesn't mean it should be completely unregulated. I think of the Constitution as a general guideline. If we were to rewrite it or amend it to include every facet of life in these United States, it would be incredibly cumbersome.
But the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Constitution cannot be redefined by redefining the words. The word welfare did not mean benevolence at the time of the writing. And the Ninth and Tenth Amendments preclude any empowering of the federal government that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. So despite what you and many others feel is OK, it is not under the written terms of the Constitution.vraiblonde said:
Think of the Constitution as the contract between the people, states, and the federal government. How would you like it if one of your clients thought that the contract between you and them was only a general guideline and they just figured they could pay you what ever they wanted instead of what was called for in the contract?
The Constitution and the process to amend it was purposely cumbersome in order to prevent the easy growth of power of the federal government.
What did it mean? General welfare, i.e. the well-being of the general public.2ndAmendment said:
That's all well and good but our Founding Fathers didn't forsee the growth of this nation and how diverse it's become. We can say that they were these all-knowing, wisdom-infested clairvoyants who thought of everything, but the truth is that they were merely men of their times who wrote the Constitution based on current events. It probably never occurred to them that someone would consider public pornography a "right" under freedom of expression. Certainly it never occurred to them that one day there might be debate on whether same-sex couples can marry.
I'm not really sure what Constitutionalists believe, anyway. Can you point me to a site or give me a thumbnail sketch?
D
dems4me
Guest
Sparx said:
Have we as a party gotten that desperate 
There's the problem.Sparx said:
It used to be that way and seemed to work just fine. The FDR (a Democrat, btw) decided to start goofing around.
D
dems4me
Guest
Sparx said:
You know A, Vrai made a very good point about FDR and all :shrug: are you abandoning our party too :shrug: From your post it doesn't appear that you put much faith in SS to begin with
Please clarify sweetie.No I don't have any faith in it. To many hands in the till now, let alone once bush starts playing with it. My first hit came from regan when he upped my retitrement age. I'm really am glad my retirement is covered in other ways. I won't be getting any benefit from that plan anyway. I'm in another already. If the Feds get their hands on the one I'm in I'll lose faith in it too.
D
dems4me
Guest
Sparx said:regan upped my retitrement age.
I thought you of all people would have liked that
I am in the fortunate position of having parents and parents-in-law that have already taken their retirement into their own hands. In fact, they're all retired and live better than we do.Sparx said:
SS was probably a good idea at the time, but people live longer now and don't have the numbers of children they used to in order to keep the pyramid scheme going.
The General Welfare, prior to an edict by the Supreme Court in the Butler Case in 1936 reversing the original meaning in the Welfare Clause, meant the business affairs of the country, not the benevolence of the the citizens. In this decision, Justice Roberts included in his opinion a dictum that the Congress would no longer be restricted in its taxing and spending powers so long as it was in the "general welfare" of the nation. This immediately opened the U.S. Treasury to looting for all kinds of give-away programs which politicians began using to buy votes. Of course the Supreme Court really had no power to reinterpret the standing meaning as written. Short of an armed rebellion, what was going to stop it? Nothing. The runaway activist judges, Justice Roberts was an early one, are legislating from the bench which violates the Constitution as well. I think it was Jefferson that noted that letting the judiciary determine the interpretation of the Constitution was like putting a fox in charge of the hen house. Jefferson was very afraid that the nation would be susceptible to become a oligarchy.vraiblonde said:What did it mean? General welfare, i.e. the well-being of the general public.
That's all well and good but our Founding Fathers didn't forsee the growth of this nation and how diverse it's become. We can say that they were these all-knowing, wisdom-infested clairvoyants who thought of everything, but the truth is that they were merely men of their times who wrote the Constitution based on current events. It probably never occurred to them that someone would consider public pornography a "right" under freedom of expression. Certainly it never occurred to them that one day there might be debate on whether same-sex couples can marry.
I'm not really sure what Constitutionalists believe, anyway. Can you point me to a site or give me a thumbnail sketch?
The founders were not clairvoyant, but they did provide a means to amend the Constitution which was good forethought. As you noted, the process is cumbersome; it is so by design to keep the country from being swayed in the winds of time providing constancy.
Although there are Christian overtones to the Constitution Party platform they do not believe, nor do Constitutionalists believe that there is a religious requirement. The platform pretty much sums up what a Constitutionalist believes. http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
Excellent analogy. Just like any pyramid scheme, SS too, will fail. The ONLY reason the U.S. is not bankrupt is because of low interest rates. Lord help us if the rates go up like they did a decade or so ago (was it longer? double digit rates). The U.S. won't be able to pay the interest on the debt much less pay for programs, military, and other stuff. When you can't pay your obligations, you are technically bankrupt.vraiblonde said:
Well if you read the history of the writing of the Constitution you would find that the founders had hours of prayer before each days work.ylexot said: