Author Topic: GOP divisions over Social Security, Medicare cuts forecast tough fights ahead  (Read 5893 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
@Kamaji  Thanks for your insight regarding SS.  Your arguments are persuasive.

If reform is needed (and this goes for anything), persuasion is the only way to bring it about.

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,889
@Kamaji  Thanks for your insight regarding SS.  Your arguments are persuasive.

If reform is needed (and this goes for anything), persuasion is the only way to bring it about.

@aligncare

Thank you very much for the kind words. 

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,314
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.

Yes it IS limited. That is the very purpose of the Constitution - to LIMIT the federal government.

And under your definition, you will not object to minimum income payments, as the liberals envision... Because it comes from the very same. There is no end to the mischief.

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,889
Yes it IS limited. That is the very purpose of the Constitution - to LIMIT the federal government.

And under your definition, you will not object to minimum income payments, as the liberals envision... Because it comes from the very same. There is no end to the mischief.

No, it’s not.  That you subjectively wish it were so does not make it so. 

With respect to minimum income payments: we already have that, in the form of the EITC, and welfare payments such as for food stamps.  And, more indirectly, through the allowance of the standard deduction. All of those represent a transfer of economic value from the government fisc to the recipient.

As far as my objecting to a universal income provision :  I would object to it on the grounds of it being ill-advised policy.  Just as I believe it is bad policy to not means test social security, and to allow such generous disability payments from it. Just as I object to the lack of a work requirement t for most welfare benefits paid out prior to retirement.

My position that “general welfare” encompasses those type of payments doesn’t commit me to having to support all of them. 

On the other hand, your position does commit you to the position that social security is unconstitutional.  Have you forsworn those benefits?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2023, 02:23:24 am by Kamaji »

Offline Wingnut

  • That is the problem with everything. They try and make it better without realizing the old is fine.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,279
  • Gender: Male
Social Security would be solvent if our government would NOT have expanded benefits to people who were never supposed to receive benefits.
I am just a Technicolor Dream Cat riding this kaleidoscope of life.

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,889
Social Security would be solvent if our government would NOT have expanded benefits to people who were never supposed to receive benefits.

Not necesssrily.  One of the fundamental problems with SS as it’s set up is that the taxes paid by today’s workers go to fund benefits for yesterday’s workers.  That works fine as long as the labor pool keeps increasing year over year, and life expectancy keeps growing, but it doesn’t work if one gets a population bubble, like then why boomer generation. 

That being said, you are correct that there would be a lot less pressure on the program if benefits were limited to retirees. 

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,314
On the other hand, your position does commit you to the position that social security is unconstitutional.  Have you forsworn those benefits?

Of course not, as there is no alternative... and according to the agreement, it is owed by virtue of the withholding that has been taken from me (both sides as self employed)... Which has nothing to do with whether it is right.

Makes no difference. The cost of it at the federal level is bankrupting us, surely. And in that, it is a self-correcting problem. Guaranteed. There is no way this level of cost can be sustained. And there is also no way that the costs will be curtailed as long as the fed has its nose in the feedbag.

You'll have your way till it craters. Which it will.

Offline Wingnut

  • That is the problem with everything. They try and make it better without realizing the old is fine.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,279
  • Gender: Male
Not necesssrily.  One of the fundamental problems with SS as it’s set up is that the taxes paid by today’s workers go to fund benefits for yesterday’s workers.  That works fine as long as the labor pool keeps increasing year over year, and life expectancy keeps growing, but it doesn’t work if one gets a population bubble, like then why boomer generation. 

That being said, you are correct that there would be a lot less pressure on the program if benefits were limited to retirees.

Don't forget that the Baby Boomers are no longer the largest generation in America.

Millennials, people between the ages of 23 to 38 years old, overtook their Boomer counterparts as of July 1, 2019.

These guys are truly fu cked like a tied up goat by our government.   
I am just a Technicolor Dream Cat riding this kaleidoscope of life.

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Constitutional architect James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

- James Madison, 1792
« Last Edit: January 14, 2023, 02:45:50 am by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,314
"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Constitutional architect James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

- James Madison, 1792

QFT and for emphasis.  :beer:

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
"Another not unimportant consideration is, that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse, and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state."
 
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

            Thomas Jefferson
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,827
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.

The forced removal of that responsibility from where it belonged has already wrought consequences that we may never overcome.  Government has replaced charity at every level.

Back before Medicaid became law, there wasn't a doctor in America that didn't give free health care to the poor.  But once the government forced its way in, all that ended.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,314
The forced removal of that responsibility from where it belonged has already wrought consequences that we may never overcome.  Government has replaced charity at every level.

Back before Medicaid became law, there wasn't a doctor in America that didn't give free health care to the poor.  But once the government forced its way in, all that ended.

That's right... and perhaps more importantly, on the personal level, many people are offended by the poor, and resent them... because the 'charity' is being forced from their wallet - that is not charity. That is akin to being mugged... and the recipient of that extortion is naturally going to be resented.

It is a wholly different flavor when the charity is freely given to one whom you know to be in need.

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,417
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
That is the blunt truth of it, no matter how painful it may be to audience members.
Lest you forget, that money wasn't voluntarily given in to some get-rich scheme, it was taken, by the government, at (threat of) gunpoint and seizure of all else and prison time for noncompliance.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,827
Not necesssrily.  One of the fundamental problems with SS as it’s set up is that the taxes paid by today’s workers go to fund benefits for yesterday’s workers.

That is the very definition of a ponzi scheme.  The fundamental problem with Social Security is that it isn't a retirement account at all.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,827
Lest you forget, that money wasn't voluntarily given in to some get-rich scheme, it was taken, by the government, at (threat of) gunpoint and seizure of all else and prison time for noncompliance.

That is no different from any other tax.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,827
It is a wholly different flavor when the charity is freely given to one whom you know to be in need.

Yep.  And no bureaucrats to siphon off a cut to cover the inefficiencies they helped create.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,827
No, it’s not.  That you subjectively wish it were so does not make it so.

Our Founding Fathers vehemently disagree with your assertion.  Ever hear of the Federalist papers?




The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government.

-Ayn Rand
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,827
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.

Again, the Preamble says "promote the general welfare", not 'provide for the general welfare'.  Government is not promoting the general welfare of a nation by stealing at the point of a gun the money that was to be set aside for a person's retirement.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,716
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
@Kamaji

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.

But then what does "general welfare" exclude?  Because I think if I follow your reasoning, the only proper answer to that is literally "nothing".  I honestly can't conceive of any government program or policy that the government itself wouldn't/couldn't be justified as providing for the "general welfare".  Can you? 

I don't disagree with what you're said about how the Constitution has been interpreted in that regard, or that the Supreme Court has the authority to make those determinations.  So I'm not debating what the reality of the law is today.  But -- and it's been a long time since I've had to do anything in that area of the law so I'm a bit rusty -- there's a legal maxim that says that an interpretation of the Constitution of or a law that ends up making a nullity of other provisions is disfavored/improper.  So, if we define "general welfare" as broadly as, say, Medicaid implicitly does, then there is no point in having Constitutionally-enumerated powers at all.  Because after all, if the Framers saw fit to enumerate a specific power, that power certainly must provide for "the general welfare" even if it wasn't enumerated.  Right?  So why bother with enumeration at all?  And if that is the case, then the doctrine of enumerated power no longer exists, and the only limitation on federal power are the rights carved out expressly in the Bill of Rights, which was very clearly not the original intent of the Framers.

I think the Framers would be absolutely stunned to find that the federal government setting up social welfare programs such as SS, Medicare, and Medicaid is considered within the original intent of the Constitution.   If it wasn't for FDR's threatened court-packing scheme in early 1937 that shook not only the judiciary but the country to its core, I think there's a good shot the Social Security Act would have been shot down as unconstitutional in the same way as the Agricultural Adjustment Act had been in 1936.   I think it's pretty much impossible to reconcile those two decisions even though they were just a year apart.

But as it was, since the Social Security Act only came before the Court after FDR's threat of court-packing, that court-packing achieved its intended result of intimidating the Supreme Court.  So, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and held (7-2) that it wasn't unconstitutional.  But I truly believe that was a political judgment by the Court, and not one based on the Constitution.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2023, 04:47:55 am by Maj. Bill Martin »

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,417
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
That is no different from any other tax.
Not so. If I don't want to pay sales tax, I don't spend the money.
If I don't want to pay the excise taxes, I don't buy the product.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,827
Not so. If I don't want to pay sales tax, I don't spend the money.
If I don't want to pay the excise taxes, I don't buy the product.

And if you don't want to pay social security taxes, you don't earn income that is taxable.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline jafo2010

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,525
  • Dems-greatest existential threat to USA republic!
The fact is that our Social Security program was based on the German Railroad Retirement Program.  Their program had age 65 to begin collecting benefits.  When SSI was started in the USA, the average life expectancy was 59, not 62, and like Germany our program was established at 65.  The average person in America was NOT EXPECTED TO COLLECT A DIME, for  the average person would be dead!

What screwed that plan?  Anti-biotics!  Anti-biotics have largely prolonged life to 78 years on average in the USA, and over the years, they introduced early SSI benefits at age 62.

Another UGLY TRUTH fact, the federal government has changed the retirement program for employees.  Used to be one got about 2% for each year worked based on the average of the top 3 or 5 years of income.  The new retirement program has federal employees collecting 1% for each year worked, and they are now eligible for SSI.  That means a sh*t ton of federal employees will be subjected to SSI to survive in retirement.

Prior to 1984, Social Security Tax was I believe 4.2%.  They raised it to 7.65 when one adds in the Medicare Tax.  That is 7.65% paid by employee, 7.65% paid by employer, and 15.3% paid by self employed.  And the income max gets indexed up every year, has gone from $32,000 in 1984 to I believe $144,000 for this year.  Despite this being many times more than what was being paid in prior to 1984, it still isn't enough! if you will recall Sen Bob Dole said they solved the problem with Social Security and Medicare by funding it properly.

Another fact, today, only about 5% of the people retiring in the USA have the money needed to maintain their lifestyle when they retire.  For the other 95%, they are largely reliant on Social Security.  Once again the program is insolvent.  And we are trusting this self serving cabal to do what is right, when EVERYTHING they have done for 50 years is flat out wrong.

Yes, it would be better for these stinking politicians to change the program to where there are individual accounts that are funded for the workforce.  How to go about it?  Phase in an approach where an added tax of 1% years 1-3, going to 2% years 4-6, 3% in years 7-9, 4% years 10-12, etc.  This in addition to the existing structure to fund current recipients.  And then at some point down the road, begin phasing out the taxing for the old program.

By moving to individual accounts, we get away from this nonsense of treating SSI as welfare, and worse, we get away from Congress stealing the money intended for SSI to use at their will, which is NEVER well intended or smart.  Congress has consistently betrayed the American people since 1984, and it hasn't gotten better over time.  Today, they sit back and allow millions of illegal aliens pour into the USA, 74% of which will end up on welfare.  REAL WELFARE, and never having paid a dime into the system.  And for those getting refugee status, they will receive sums of money far greater than the average SSI recipient.  And their contribution to our society?  A BIG FAT NOTHING!!!!!!!

The American people need to wake up to how truly bent over they are with these politicians.

Back to the UGLY TRUTH about SSI.  Politicians cannot continue to structure the program the same way.  They need to design a system where monies paid in to the system are in fact in individual accounts, owned by that account holder.  And stinking thieving politicians have no where with all to steal those monies.  It can be done.

I will work until I die most likely.  I turn 70 this year, and I am working full time to scratch out a middle class existence.  If Congress reduces the SSI payout 10-12 years down the road by 25%(which is being mentioned in more and more places), I will end up collecting the original amount I was earmarked to receive at my FRA, less the $660 stolen out of my pocket by Obama/Biden.  That with my pension, and I will be able to survive. 

But moving the FRA to 70 or 72, moving early retirement from 62 to 67 and reducing the payout by 25% will not permanently make the program solvent.  At some point down the road, we will be right back where we are now.  That is why it is necessary to start individual accounts and establish a roadmap to move fully to that while gradually phasing out the current SSI program, and it gets phased out as recipients die off.

All the comments about the Baby Boom generation are nonsense.  Yes, each year there are the equivalent of five years of folks reaching 67 compared to pre Baby Boom folks.  But we have TWO BOOM GENERATIONS bigger than the Baby Boomers of 1946-1964.  And yes, we have to continue to expand the workforce to support those collecting benefits. 

But the time has come to construct a new approach for those moving into the future.  And they have to have the ability to invest in the market.  Leaving the money with the government is generating 1% returns.  This is just plain foolish.  Leave the  money in the government hands, and the thieves of Washington steal the money and leave I.O.U.s.  F*** that bullsh*t!

By having individual accounts, over time, the need to have an expanding workforce goes away.  If the workforce shrinks, it will not matter, for if people can invest their retirement in the market and get a 5% - 10% return, they will have plenty of money compared to the current program.

THE TIME HAS COME TO LOBBY THE ELECTED THIEVES TO EMBRACE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS AND DESIGN A PROGRAM TO TRANSITION FROM THE CURRENT PROGRAM TO THE NEW PROGRAM, AND BY DOING SO, MAKE IT SOLVENT PERMANENTLY.  AND END THE THIEVERY OF THE ELECTED PUKES!!!!!!
« Last Edit: January 14, 2023, 10:31:07 am by jafo2010 »

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,716
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Again, the Preamble says "promote the general welfare", not 'provide for the general welfare'.  Government is not promoting the general welfare of a nation by stealing at the point of a gun the money that was to be set aside for a person's retirement.

Actually, the Preamble has no legal force or effect. The Supreme Court already has held that, correctly in my opinion.  The "general welfare" provision being referred to is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

I won't launch into a (likely long-winded) post about how there is a general lack of understanding of original intent when it comes to the states and the rights of individual citizens, but I think it's at least worth noting that the bolded clause does NOT say "provide for the general welfare of the people", but rather provide for the general welfare of the United States".

« Last Edit: January 14, 2023, 02:12:30 pm by Maj. Bill Martin »

Offline catfish1957

  • Laken Riley.... Say her Name. And to every past and future democrat voter- Her blood is on your hands too!!!
  • Political Researcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,365
  • Gender: Male
One either supports government-run ponzi schemes or one does not support government-run ponzi schemes.

Bears repeating. 

I maxed this sucker out, and then they change all the rules.  And thirdly, paying tax on this every year consitutes double taxation.  It's like paying tax on a Hamburger at the drive through, and then the government comes back to tax it again as you eat it.

At least in a Ponzi Scheme the victims only pay once.  This is more like sodomy.
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.