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

[roamer_1]

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".

As I have a penchant for textual criticism, I find your premise to be unworkable.
However one describes 'general welfare' with an interpretation that removes the defined limits - the very purpose of the Constitution's intent - well such an interpretation is necessarily at cross-purposes, and never mind the camels nose under the tent - Such an interpretation allows whole herds of camels into the tent, right through the door.

And it further sets up a condition wherein the federal government can design itself any way it deigns - leaving only what it cares not to pick up 'to the states and the People, respectively'.

Which, exactly as has been happening, legally supports a burgeoning behemoth of a federal menace with no real restrictions. That is not the government of a free people.

[Hoodat]

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

I had assumed that we were discussing the "general welfare" of "We the People" - not the general welfare of the federal government.

[Hoodat]

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.

It's 15.3% for everyone.  The portion supposedly paid by your employer on your behalf is still money being paid to you as a cost of your employment.  In other words, it is the employee's money that is being paid for both halves.  Just another tool government uses to fool the masses.

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.

That is because 15% of their income has been confiscated by government at the point of a gun their entire working lives.  It is that 15% that could have gone into retirement accounts, turning them into millionaires when they retire.  But government deprived them of the ability to do that.  Social Security is the greatest cause of cyclical poverty in the nation today.

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.

The 31 trillion pound gorilla in the room.  We are currently paying out more in 'benefits' [sic] than we are taking in in taxes.  And this trend will continue for at least the next 40 years.  It is impossible to maintain a 2:1 ratio between workers and recipients.

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.

Amen, brother!  AMEN !!!

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.

Preach it!

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.

It's not difficult to do, either.  But the only one resisting giving that power back to 'We the People' is government itself.

[Hoodat]

Consider a person working full time earning $15/hr being able to take the 14.4% in Social Security taxes the government confiscates and divert that money instead into a retirement account.  If that person began doing that at age 20, and continued to make that same base rate their entire working career, never being promoted to a higher paying position, then that person would have approximately $900k in their retirement fund when they reached retirement age.

That person could then draw double their life-long salary from that account every year from then until they reach the age of 94.  Does Social Security do that?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I had assumed that we were discussing the "general welfare" of "We the People" - not the general welfare of the federal government.

And I think the correct interpretation may be closer to being "neither".

As I said, a great many people have a flawed understanding of the original meaning/effect of the Constitution. For example, under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, states could regulate firearms as much as they wished.  They could ban guns if they wished

They could also discriminate on the basis of religion, have official state churches, and suppress the press and even the right to free speech, as much as they wished.  Cruel and unusual punishment would be totally okay as long as it was the states imposing it. The Constitution, as ratified with the Bill of Rights, didn't prohibit any of that.

Instead, it was intended to establish the rules governing the relationships between the states, and to perform only such federal functions for the people that the states themselves were incapable of performing.  It was not intended for the federal government to exercise the kind of powers that the states themselves were perfectly able to execute on behalf of their citizens.  And in that regard, the federal government, and only the federal government, was further limited by the Bill of Rights.  The preservation of those rights on the state level was left entirely to the discretion of the individual states.

So that should be the baseline for interpreting the proper meaning of "general welfare" in Article I.  It would be the type of stuf that would be of benefit to the citizens of the country but that only the federal government could perform. A perfect example of that would be the Louisiana Purchase.  The purchasing of such a vast new territory clearly benefited the people of the country as a whole, but was the sort of action that only the central government could perform.

Obviously, all forms of social welfare programs are perfectly capable of being ordered and administered by any state or local government.  And therefore, I would argue, should have been deemed unconstitutional when implemented by the federal government under the "general welfare" clause of Article I.

[Bigun]

Finally, @Maj. Bill Martin you write something I can agree with.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Consider a person working full time earning $15/hr being able to take the 14.4% in Social Security taxes the government confiscates and divert that money instead into a retirement account.  If that person began doing that at age 20, and continued to make that same base rate their entire working career, never being promoted to a higher paying position, then that person would have approximately $900k in their retirement fund when they reached retirement age.

That person could then draw double their life-long salary from that account every year from then until they reach the age of 94.  Does Social Security do that?

No, and I agree with you on the premise that it should be left up to individuals.

One of the counterpoints is "what do we do with those elderly people who didn't invest as well and don't ha e the money to live on?"

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Finally, @Maj. Bill Martin you write something I can agree with.

I think I'm much more conservative than you likely think.  It's the tactics/strategy for getting there where we really disagree.

[mystery-ak]

https://mobile.twitter.com/StephenM/status/1614012396485459969

[roamer_1]

No, and I agree with you on the premise that it should be left up to individuals.

One of the counterpoints is "what do we do with those elderly people who didn't invest as well and don't ha e the money to live on?"

What's always been done - Family takes care of family - If there is no family, the church or the town. Only when their aid would not be enough did the state get involved, as in long term medical care, or asylums...

[Maj. Bill Martin]

As I have a penchant for textual criticism, I find your premise to be unworkable.
However one describes 'general welfare' with an interpretation that removes the defined limits - the very purpose of the Constitution's intent - well such an interpretation is necessarily at cross-purposes, and never mind the camels nose under the tent - Such an interpretation allows whole herds of camels into the tent, right through the door.

And it further sets up a condition wherein the federal government can design itself any way it deigns - leaving only what it cares not to pick up 'to the states and the People, respectively'.

Which, exactly as has been happening, legally supports a burgeoning behemoth of a federal menace with no real restrictions. That is not the government of a free people.

You have misrepresented what I posted.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

What's always been done - Family takes care of family - If there is no family, the church or the town. Only when their aid would not be enough did the state get involved, as in long term medical care, or asylums...

I agree.  I'm simply pointing out the arguments used against privatization.  If we buy into it - and I agree we should - we have to acknowledge and be ready to defend the idea that some will fall through the cracks.

[roamer_1]

You have misrepresented what I posted.

I don't know how. And I certainly did not mean to.

[roamer_1]

I agree.  I'm simply pointing out the arguments used against privatization.  If we buy into it - and I agree we should - we have to acknowledge and be ready to defend the idea that some will fall through the cracks.

They always have    But historically it has been the STATE that picked up the tab. And only as a last resort. And I would wager, on balance, the care was better and cost way less.

[Bigun]

I think I'm much more conservative than you likely think.  It's the tactics/strategy for getting there where we really disagree.

That sir has been the problem for my entire lifetime. We all want to get to the same place but never get anywhere because we can never agree about which car to take the trip in.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

As I have a penchant for textual criticism, I find your premise to be unworkable.
However one describes 'general welfare' with an interpretation that removes the defined limits - the very purpose of the Constitution's intent - well such an interpretation is necessarily at cross-purposes, and never mind the camels nose under the tent - Such an interpretation allows whole herds of camels into the tent, right through the door.

And it further sets up a condition wherein the federal government can design itself any way it deigns - leaving only what it cares not to pick up 'to the states and the People, respectively'.

Which, exactly as has been happening, legally supports a burgeoning behemoth of a federal menace with no real restrictions. That is not the government of a free people.

Where is the specific language in my  post where I stated a premise of a broad interpretation of the general welfare provision of Article I?  I'm curious, because I've been consistent here in arguing the opposite.

[roamer_1]

Where is the specific language in my  post where I stated a premise of a broad interpretation of the general welfare provision of Article I?  I'm curious, because I've been consistent here in arguing the opposite.

This bit...

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:

... as a parry against (largely) @Hoodat 's 'Promote the general welfare' argument... In your general defense of national social security (and welfare).

My rebuttal was designed to point out that any such interpretation of 'general welfare' regardless of its source, is a direct affront to the limited federal model the Constitution intends in it's description of enumerated powers (and ONLY those enumerated powers) granted in the federal model - Invariably such an interpretation will derail that model.

However, you further explained yourself further downthread (feds doing what states can't do on their own), using the Louisiana Purchase as an example - Such an example, or the building of continental rail and highway systems is certainly a more palatable theory, but is no defense or excuse for a national (federal) retirement scheme (or welfare system)... which you seem to continue to defend.

If I read you wrong, I apologize.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That sir has been the problem for my entire lifetime. We all want to get to the same place but never get anywhere because we can never agree about which car to take the trip in.

Well, I can see both sides. For my part, I see it as having taken us more than 200 years to get to this point, and we're not going to be able to roll it back overnight.

On the other hand, I can understand the impatience of  those who see us as having lost ground more or less consistently during this entire period, so it's time to change tactics.

[Bigun]

Well, I can see both sides. For my part, I see it as having taken us more than 200 years to get to this point, and we're not going to be able to roll it back overnight.

That's a given and I have never argued otherwise.

On the other hand, I can understand the impatience of  those who see us as having lost ground more or less consistently during this entire period, so it's time to change tactics.

  But whose tactics do we choose?  As for me, I'm done with compromise and "wait until next year!"

[Hoodat]

One of the counterpoints is "what do we do with those elderly people who didn't invest as well and don't ha e the money to live on?"

What do we do with those elderly people who did invest and do have the money to live on?  Punish them by making them pay for those who didn't?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

What do we do with those elderly people who did invest and do have the money to live on?  Punish them by making them pay for those who didn't?

Nope.  Not in my book.  I'm just saying that is going to be the issue raised.  Especially likely for those who are fortunate enough to hang on into their late 80's-90's and may exhaust what they thought were adequate savings.  So does the government act as a backstop if those folks run out of money, or not?

[Hoodat]

Nope.  Not in my book.  I'm just saying that is going to be the issue raised.

That argument is not rational.

Especially likely for those who are fortunate enough to hang on into their late 80's-90's and may exhaust what they thought were adequate savings.  So does the government act as a backstop if those folks run out of money, or not?

In the example provided earlier, a person could maintain their pre-retirement income level indefinitely with a 5% rate of return on 12.4% of their income and a continually growing balance sheet.  And that leaves one heck of an inheritance for their kids and grandkids, breaking the cycle of poverty.

So does the government act as a backstop if those folks run out of money, or not?

No.  Bad decision should not be subsidized.  Ever.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@roamer_1

This bit...

... as a parry against (largely) @Hoodat 's 'Promote the general welfare' argument... In your general defense of national social security (and welfare).

The bolded is true, but my parry was purely a matter of textual reality -- not textual or any real interpretation at all.  In that post, @Hoodat said:

Again, the Preamble says "promote the general welfare", not 'provide for the general welfare'.

All I did was point out the inarguable textual fact that Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 -- which is the actual grant of Congressional power -- does indeed use the word "provide" and not just "promote".  I was just making a point about the literal text itself for the sake of accuracy.  Or are you saying that I misquoted Article I, Section 8?  I would add that I also corrected the statement that the Constitution talked about the general Welfare of "the People", when in fact, Article 1, Section 8 does not say "the People" but rather "the United States".  Again, as a basic matter of textual accuracy, that's inarguable.  Whatever inference you drew beyond that was of your own creation.

The second, unbolded part of your statement -  "in your [my] general defense of national social security" is something I never said, or even fairly implied.  I never defended that, and what's kind of frustrating about that is that should have been completely clear if you read my posts.  This is a direct quote from my post that was just two up from the one you quoted.  I don't see how anyone could have read this and thought I was defending the Constitutionality of federal social welfare programs:

@Kamaji

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.

Not really sure how I could have been more clear.

If I read you wrong, I apologize.

Fair enough!   

A long time ago, I remember discussing the various New Deal cases in Constitutional Law, and had a professor who was an unabashed liberal, as was most of the class. So after most of the class spoke up the in support of the Court upholding the Social Security Act, I piped up and said "that interpretation of the "general welfare" provision could be used to justify basically anything, without limits, because what government action can't be claimed to be for the "general welfare?  They should have struck it down."  To the professor's credit, he said "Oh, you're absolutely right.  I like the result of the case, and was glad they decided it how they did, but if they were really following the Constitution, they should have struck it down."

Not many honest liberals left, unfortunately.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That argument is not rational.


In the example provided earlier, a person could maintain their pre-retirement income level indefinitely with a 5% rate of return on 12.4% of their income and a continually growing balance sheet.  And that leaves one heck of an inheritance for their kids and grandkids, breaking the cycle of poverty.


No.  Bad decision should not be subsidized.  Ever.

I actually agree with you in terms of policy, and believe that taking care of the elderly who did not save should be a matter for private charity.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

But whose tactics do we choose?  As for me, I'm done with compromise and "wait until next year!"

Well, I think the term "compromise" is often misused.  It doesn't mean "giving the other side less than what they're asking".  It means being willing to accept "moving the ball some distance in your own direction even if it isn't the whole way".

A great example of that is the so-called partial repeal of ObamaCare that passed the House, but that McCain killed in the Senate.  As it was, there were a fair number of conservatives who opposed that partial repeal because they wanted a full-repeal, and dammit, they weren't going to settle for anything less!  In my opinion, that was just stupid because we were never even close to having the votes for a full repeal, and the partial repeal gutted the critical part of Obamacare, which was the federal subsidies.  Kill those, and the program dies on the vine eventually.  McCain ended up killing it later in the Senate, but there were hardcores in the House who voted against the partial repeal on that basis, and almost sank it.

Hitting a double and getting thrown out trying to take third when the throw is going to beat you by 30 feet is just dumb.