GOP divisions over Social Security, Medicare cuts forecast tough fights ahead

[bilo]

I hope it pointed out the fault of the investors themselves.  Madoff investors had an expectation that Madoff had inside information.  In other words, they gave him their money because they thought he was breaking the law.  Well, he was.

Some interesting points.

Investors admitted they stuck with Madoff because the returns were so good. IOW, they let their greed cloud their judgement. Also, some of the investors were large hedge funds and incredibly wealthy families from around the world.

Also, even though the SEC looked into Madoff 3 times and received detailed breakdowns why it was impossible that his fund could not pay out the returns that it did they never found any wrong doing. In fact the only reason he was caught was because of the housing collapse in 2008 and Lehman Brothers closing. When those two events occurred there was a run on wall street firms with investors pulling their money out.

The same thing will happen in the USA when the govt defaults on bond payments, which is where we are headed. Entitlements consume an ever growing portion of the budget and if the working generations decline in number and expenditures continue to grow we will reach a point where those seeking payments will find the money isn't there to pay everyone.

[bilo]

It could also be means tested.

If you are going to means test social security then call it a welfare program and include the social security taxes in the income tax rates. IOW, stop misleading people that social security is a retirement supplement that you paid into.

[roamer_1]

So I guess we don't even question whether it is within the federal aegis anymore, huh? 

[Hoodat]

And so, the tax was only 1% from 1937-1950.

It is over 12 times that now.

It gradually became an irreversible nightmare Ponzi scheme.

It's been a ponzi scheme from Day One.  The only way to 'fix' it is to remove government from the money equation.  If government wants to mandate that everyone have a retirement account, then do so.  And instead of people handing 12.4% of their income over to the Treasury Dept to be spent the second it arrives, they should hand it over to a qualified retirement investment of their choice.

And don't say that people are too stupid to be in charge of their investment accounts.  Because the stupidest thing anyone could possibly do is to hand their retirement money over to the Feds.  Government is counting on us to be stupid.

[Hoodat]

So I guess we don't even question whether it is within the federal aegis anymore, huh? 

Repeal Amendment XVI.

[Kamaji]

If you are going to means test social security then call it a welfare program and include the social security taxes in the income tax rates. IOW, stop misleading people that social security is a retirement supplement that you paid into.

Why?

It is a welfare program already.  And the tax is included in the Internal Revenue Code as an excise tax on employment.  And why on God's green Earth would anyone buy the B.S. that social security is a retirement supplement you bought and paid for?

Just read the g-d-damned tax code, people.  Stop relying on the government to tell you the truth about what it's doing.

[Hoodat]

Why?

It is a welfare program already.

Then get rid of it.

[Kamaji]

So I guess we don't even question whether it is within the federal aegis anymore, huh? 

Because it's completely within the federal government's aegis.  The federal government has the power to impose tax, including a tax on income, and the social security tax is exactly that:  a tax on the income of an employee - IRC §3101 - and an excise tax on the employer - IRC §3111.  The government also has the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States, which includes social security.  Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 641 (1937).

[Kamaji]

Then get rid of it.

Why?

[Hoodat]

Why?

1.  Because it is a welfare program that we cannot afford.  Within ten years, there will be only two workers for every one person collecting social security.

2.  Because it is a ripoff.  If a person had been allowed to invest their social security taxes into a 401(k) instead, every person in the US would retire as a millionaire.

3.  Because it inhibits our freedom.

4.  Because government can't be trusted.

[Bigun]

Because it's completely within the federal government's aegis.  The federal government has the power to impose tax, including a tax on income, and the social security tax is exactly that:  a tax on the income of an employee - IRC §3101 - and an excise tax on the employer - IRC §3111.  The government also has the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States, which includes social security.  Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 641 (1937).

So they say, but the economic reality is that ALL of it comes right out of the employee's pocket from the very first $ onward.

[roamer_1]

Because it's completely within the federal government's aegis.  The federal government has the power to impose tax, including a tax on income, and the social security tax is exactly that:  a tax on the income of an employee - IRC §3101 - and an excise tax on the employer - IRC §3111.  The government also has the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States, which includes social security.  Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 641 (1937).

The tax is not the point. It is the use of the tax - The social security and welfare programs are better suited to the states - and without the programs, the tax would not be necessary.

And no, social programs are not within the original aegis of the federal enumerated powers.

[Hoodat]

The government also has the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States, which includes social security.

The words are "promote the general welfare", not 'provide for the general welfare'.  Big difference.  The words were given as a reason for establishing the US Constitution, not as an affirmation of power for the government.  The Constitution is a treatise on the limitation of governmental power.

[berdie]

1.  Because it is a welfare program that we cannot afford.  Within ten years, there will be only two workers for every one person collecting social security.
In 10 years an awful lot of the current recipients will be dead. So it may even out. It might be useful to separate payments that are not actually SS (illegals, SSDI, etc.) to see if the actual fund is sustainable.

2.  Because it is a ripoff.  If a person had been allowed to invest their social security taxes into a 401(k) instead, every person in the US would retire as a millionaire.

I agree. Your suggestion in reply #28 is very workable...if you restrict access to those funds until retirement age. But I can't for the life of me figure out how we would convert the system.

3.  Because it inhibits our freedom.

No argument

4.  Because government can't be trusted.

Absolutely no argument

[Kamaji]

The tax is not the point. It is the use of the tax - The social security and welfare programs are better suited to the states - and without the programs, the tax would not be necessary.

And no, social programs are not within the original aegis of the federal enumerated powers.

(a) whether those programs should be better run by the states is a policy matter, not a constitutional matter, and (b) yes, those programs are within the meaning of the Congress' power to spend for the general welfare.  The Supreme Court has made that quite clear for almost 100 years, without controversy.  Wishful thinking won't change that fact.

The hard work has to be done by those who wish to curtail the spending, not by wishful delusions of a reconstituted Supreme Court riding in on white unicorns to save us from ourselves.

[Kamaji]

1.  Because it is a welfare program that we cannot afford.  Within ten years, there will be only two workers for every one person collecting social security.

2.  Because it is a ripoff.  If a person had been allowed to invest their social security taxes into a 401(k) instead, every person in the US would retire as a millionaire.

3.  Because it inhibits our freedom.

4.  Because government can't be trusted.

All of those are nice policy preferences.  Now go out there and convince a sufficient number of your fellow Americans of those propositions.  To-date, they disagree with you.

[Hoodat]

All of those are nice policy preferences.

All of them are truths.

Now go out there and convince a sufficient number of your fellow Americans of those propositions.

In other words, convince them of the truth.

To-date, they disagree with you.

To date, they choose to be deceived.

[Hoodat]

(a) whether those programs should be better run by the states is a policy matter, not a constitutional matter

Managing the program for my retirement is better run by me.

[roamer_1]

(a) whether those programs should be better run by the states is a policy matter, not a constitutional matter, and (b) yes, those programs are within the meaning of the Congress' power to spend for the general welfare.  The Supreme Court has made that quite clear for almost 100 years, without controversy.  Wishful thinking won't change that fact.

The hard work has to be done by those who wish to curtail the spending, not by wishful delusions of a reconstituted Supreme Court riding in on white unicorns to save us from ourselves.

No doubt I am more in line with @Hoodat with regard to the meaning and use of 'general welfare'. And in that, I don't care what unelected judges have to say - the original enumerated powers of the federal government are well described, and anything else is simply performed under the color of law.

[Kamaji]

Managing the program for my retirement is better run by me.

Maybe so, maybe not.  At any rate, there are a sufficient number of people who, for one reason or another, cannot adequately provide for their own retirement security, and there is nothing inherently objectionable about "we" through our elected government, providing a degree of security for those people.

You may not agree with that, but that is just a policy preference disagreement, and if you wish to prevail, then you will need to persuade enough people to your position.

If you cannot, then you either accept the policy choices of the majority, or you find someplace else to hang your retirement hat.

Democratic societies suck that way, and it is incumbent on the rest of us to suck it up, or exercise the power of the feet to find greener pastures.

[Kamaji]

No doubt I am more in line with @Hoodat with regard to the meaning and use of 'general welfare'. And in that, I don't care what unelected judges have to say - the original enumerated powers of the federal government are well described, and anything else is simply performed under the color of law.

You're entitled to your personal subjective opinion about the value of the opinions of unelected judges - that will provide you with a whole heapin' helpin' of comfort while you rot in jail - that is, if you have the courage of your convictions to actually ignore what those judges have said and go your own way.

However, the decisions of a validly constituted court are binding, one's personal preferences and beliefs notwithstanding.

Good luck with that one.

As far as the understanding of the term "general welfare" - it's an ambiguous term, and therefore is capable of having its interpretation and construction altered as legal cases come and go.  That is the strength of the common law system of laws, and the lack of that capacity is one of the embrittlements of the civil code system of doing things.

So, you may choose to adhere to a crabbed, outdated understanding of the term "general welfare", but that does not mean that your personal, subjective beliefs about its meaning are entitled to anything other than the common courtesy afforded to everyone's personal subjective beliefs.

I.e., "that's nice."

[Kamaji]

All of them are truths.


In other words, convince them of the truth.


To date, they choose to be deceived.

No, they are policy preferences.  The logical outcomes of those policy preferences may be disputable, and may lead to negative or undesirable consequences, but that does not mean that the policy preferences are meaningless as such.

At the end of the day, what it means is that one who espouses a policy preference that is currently in the minority has the obligation to either (a) accept the majority's countervailing policy preference, or (b) persuade enough of one's fellow countrymen to one's argument that one's policy preferences become the majority.

[roamer_1]

Maybe so, maybe not.  At any rate, there are a sufficient number of people who, for one reason or another, cannot adequately provide for their own retirement security, and there is nothing inherently objectionable about "we" through our elected government, providing a degree of security for those people.

At the federal level? There is PLENTY that is inherently objectionable - If nothing else at all, the cudgel it gives the fed over the states, and the unlimited blank check the fed can claim, not to mention the authority that comes with it to meddle in lives.

To be sure, we must take care of the elderly, the crippled, the widow... There is nothing inherently objectionable in that. But in most definitions of charity, and certainly in the Judeo-Christian definition thereof, that charity begins in the family. And then is upon the town. And then upon the Church. Removing that responsibility from where it belongs has consequences you may not have considered.

Secondly, the inherent choices and costs are best determined locally - not by some bureaucracy 3000 miles away. And the exercise of thriftiness in the execution thereof, without an overhead, is nearly built into locality.

And likewise the state - Every dollar sent to the general fund in Washington is a dollar not available to the state, or locality, or family.

There is plenty to object to.

You may not agree with that, but that is just a policy preference disagreement, and if you wish to prevail, then you will need to persuade enough people to your position.

No, it is a separation of powers disagreement. and a moral imperative.

If you cannot, then you either accept the policy choices of the majority, or you find someplace else to hang your retirement hat.

Democratic societies suck that way, and it is incumbent on the rest of us to suck it up, or exercise the power of the feet to find greener pastures.

If it were where it belongs, one could vote with their feet - and find another STATE.

[roamer_1]

So, you may choose to adhere to a crabbed, outdated understanding of the term "general welfare"

Hubris... There is nothing crabbed or outdated about what the original intent of the phrase defines.

[Kamaji]

Hubris... There is nothing crabbed or outdated about what the original intent of the phrase defines.

The term is not so easily limited.  The original intent does not exclude a general program of welfare payments.  Ensuring that there is a minimum level of economic security is providing for the “general welfare” in a literal sense.