The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on January 12, 2023, 03:00:35 pm
-
GOP divisions over Social Security, Medicare cuts forecast tough fights ahead
by Nathaniel Weixel and Mike Lillis - 01/12/23 6:00 AM ET
House Republicans are divided over cuts to Medicare and Social Security, setting up what could be a fierce internal clash over the future of the nation’s top safety net programs when Congress delves into budget fights later in the year.
Entitlements have long been a political third rail, but some in the GOP say everything is on the table and are eager to use upcoming debt ceiling negotiations to extract promises to reduce government spending, including entitlement funding.
That could pit the GOP’s staunchest deficit hawks against other conservatives who insist Medicare and Social Security will be left alone and the cuts will come from elsewhere.
With a narrow GOP majority, Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) can lose only four votes on any bill, and will have to find a way to placate the lawmakers calling for hard cuts.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), one of the conservative leaders who extracted a promise from McCarthy to limit new discretionary spending, insisted entitlements are safe.
“It took approximately .2 seconds for everybody to be saying, ‘You’re gonna slaughter defense … You’re gonna hurt Social Security and Medicare.’ Everybody calm down,” Roy said in an interview with conservative radio host Jesse Kelly.
“What we have been very clear about is, we’re not going to touch the benefits that are going to people relying on the benefits under Social Security and Medicare,” he said Sunday on CNN’s ‘State of the Union.’
The official rules package Republicans passed earlier this week calls for equal or greater cuts in mandatory spending to offset any new spending, but it did not specify where those cuts needed to come from.
more
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3809592-gop-divisions-over-social-security-medicare-cuts-forecast-tough-fights-ahead/
-
Obama/Biden took $660 out of my pocket per month for Social Security when Obama was POTUS. With their change from five highest years income to a formula of 35 years, that change cost me the above.
If Republicans attempt to take away anything from SSI recipients, they won't get elected again. Frankly, I am tired of hearing SSI being referred to as entitlements. SSI was funded by payments made by the workforce across America, and the thieving politicians in Washington have stolen that money ever since 1984 to spend as they will. If we had any honest politicians in Washington, this nonsense would have been reversed.
If you will recall, Bob Dole ran for POTUS on the basis of having FIXED SSI. Now we are being told it blows up in a few years, and get ready for a 25% cut in SSI. Any cuts and the senior population will vote these *sshats out of office. I fully support NOT paying benefits to folks that have not paid into the system. We have illegal aliens/refugee status individuals receiving dollars greater than SSI recipients, and we always have an endless supply of dollars for these people. Tired of that nonsense.
When will the American people be considered? I have lost $660 per month for the rest of my life and the increases that come with that annually. This is wrong. The Democommies are the ones that have cheated the baby boom generation out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in SSI per individual. I am so sick of hearing the Republicans are the ones wanting to take away benefits when it is the Dems that have cheated me out of $660/month. All these thieves in Washington are looking to line their pockets while cheating the American people and I am so tired of it.
-
Obama/Biden took $660 out of my pocket per month for Social Security when Obama was POTUS. With their change from five highest years income to a formula of 35 years, that change cost me the above.
If Republicans attempt to take away anything from SSI recipients, they won't get elected again. Frankly, I am tired of hearing SSI being referred to as entitlements. SSI was funded by payments made by the workforce across America, and the thieving politicians in Washington have stolen that money ever since 1984 to spend as they will. If we had any honest politicians in Washington, this nonsense would have been reversed.
If you will recall, Bob Dole ran for POTUS on the basis of having FIXED SSI. Now we are being told it blows up in a few years, and get ready for a 25% cut in SSI. Any cuts and the senior population will vote these *sshats out of office. I fully support NOT paying benefits to folks that have not paid into the system. We have illegal aliens/refugee status individuals receiving dollars greater than SSI recipients, and we always have an endless supply of dollars for these people. Tired of that nonsense.
When will the American people be considered? I have lost $660 per month for the rest of my life and the increases that come with that annually. This is wrong. The Democommies are the ones that have cheated the baby boom generation out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in SSI per individual. I am so sick of hearing the Republicans are the ones wanting to take away benefits when it is the Dems that have cheated me out of $660/month. All these thieves in Washington are looking to line their pockets while cheating the American people and I am so tired of it.
You may be tired of hearing that SSI is an entitlement, but that is precisely what it is. Your part was paying an additional income tax on your wages to fund the entitlement benefits for earlier retirees, not to fund some sort of an annuity or retirement account for yourself.
-
Obama/Biden took $660 out of my pocket per month for Social Security when Obama was POTUS. With their change from five highest years income to a formula of 35 years, that change cost me the above.
If Republicans attempt to take away anything from SSI recipients, they won't get elected again. Frankly, I am tired of hearing SSI being referred to as entitlements. SSI was funded by payments made by the workforce across America, and the thieving politicians in Washington have stolen that money ever since 1984 to spend as they will. If we had any honest politicians in Washington, this nonsense would have been reversed.
If you will recall, Bob Dole ran for POTUS on the basis of having FIXED SSI. Now we are being told it blows up in a few years, and get ready for a 25% cut in SSI. Any cuts and the senior population will vote these *sshats out of office. I fully support NOT paying benefits to folks that have not paid into the system. We have illegal aliens/refugee status individuals receiving dollars greater than SSI recipients, and we always have an endless supply of dollars for these people. Tired of that nonsense.
When will the American people be considered? I have lost $660 per month for the rest of my life and the increases that come with that annually. This is wrong. The Democommies are the ones that have cheated the baby boom generation out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in SSI per individual. I am so sick of hearing the Republicans are the ones wanting to take away benefits when it is the Dems that have cheated me out of $660/month. All these thieves in Washington are looking to line their pockets while cheating the American people and I am so tired of it.
I retired at 55, so they put the screws to me too. Haven't put the calculator to this fiasco, but I only maxed out 25 or my 37 years of work history. So I am guessing the damage is pretty substantial. I guess pushing my benefit age back to 66 1/2 wasn't enough of a middle finger.
-
You may be tired of hearing that SSI is an entitlement, but that is precisely what it is. Your part was paying an additional income tax on your wages to fund the entitlement benefits for earlier retirees, not to fund some sort of an annuity or retirement account for yourself.
And the fact that 75% is taxable again once you get the benefit Which pretty much a tax on something that has already been taxed.
In my case, I am going to just withhold it all as income tax deduction on other stuff, just to make a statement.
And don't get me started on the IRMAA shit and basic medicare (prior to supplements) costing well over $10K a year for us. Government benefits, my ass.
-
Our Marxist inspired income tax system is pure evil! We should be taxed on what we consume not what we earn!
-
I am waiting to 70 to start collecting assuming I will live long into my 80s. It's a gamble. I turn 70 this year in September, so my first payment will be October. It will make my life easier, but I will end up owing the IRS a big pot of taxes each year. Tired of getting taxed to death each year.
And it bothers me that 58% of America pays zero income tax. The inequity in our tax policies bothers me as well. MY wife has a friend living in a million dollar home, has a cash income equal to my wife, of which she declares about 15% of it, is on Obamacare paying $20 per month in premium when we pay $500 per month. She tools around in a new BMW, and she is gaming the system paying no taxes. And I know an architect making a six figure income who has NEVER filed a return with the IRS. NEVER FILED HIS ENTIRE LIFE!
This is why I fully support the creation of a FAIR TAX and the ending of the Income Tax, or greatly scaling back income taxes.
-
And it bothers me that 58% of America pays zero income tax. The inequity in our tax policies bothers me as well. MY wife has a friend living in a million dollar home, has a cash income equal to my wife, of which she declares about 15% of it, is on Obamacare paying $20 per month in premium when we pay $500 per month. She tools around in a new BMW, and she is gaming the system paying no taxes. And I know an architect making a six figure income who has NEVER filed a return with the IRS. NEVER FILED HIS ENTIRE LIFE!
This is why I fully support the creation of a FAIR TAX and the ending of the Income Tax, or greatly scaling back income taxes.
I'm approaching paying the IRS $1.8M in my life. The fact that the little bit I am getting back has basically been swallowed by my forcing to subsidize Medicare, and double taxation of my future SSI?
Bigun nailed it 100%. What our government has done to people who people who choose to work and succeed is ulterly evil.
I hope Galt's Gulch is much nicer in the near future.
-
Your part was paying an additional income tax on your wages to fund the entitlement benefits for earlier retirees, not to fund some sort of an annuity or retirement account for yourself.
[/b]
You'd be surprised how many people believe the bolded part. In fact, so do many conservatives
-
"Entitlements have long been a political third rail, but some in the GOP say everything is on the table and are eager to use upcoming debt ceiling negotiations to extract promises to reduce government spending, including entitlement funding."
They just can't help themselves, can they...?
-
[/b]
You'd be surprised how many people believe the bolded part. In fact, so do many conservatives
Doesn't surprise me in the least how many people believe that. Mainly that's because that was the lie that was told back in the 1930s to make the social security taxes palatable. Way too many people drank the kool-aid on that one.
-
You may be tired of hearing that SSI is an entitlement, but that is precisely what it is. Your part was paying an additional income tax on your wages to fund the entitlement benefits for earlier retirees, not to fund some sort of an annuity or retirement account for yourself.
That may be, but that is no why I have been paying into that system for the last 52 years, because that is not what we were told the money was for. I didn't guy savings bonds to pay for the last guy to cash his in and be left with bupkis, either.
If I paid for it, quit treating it like welfare or Medicaid (which has better benefits), because I have been paying for that better coverage for people who aren't chipping in.
And don't even get me started on illegals being given gobs of freebies, either.
-
One either supports government-run ponzi schemes or one does not support government-run ponzi schemes.
-
One either supports government-run ponzi schemes or one does not support government-run ponzi schemes.
Netflix has a good docuseries running on Madoff. If people believe govt. ponzi schemes won't collapse the way private sector ponzi schemes collapse they will be in for a big surprise. All you have to do is look at countries in population decline to see what happens, the benefits become worthless.
-
That may be, but that is no why I have been paying into that system for the last 52 years, because that is not what we were told the money was for. I didn't guy savings bonds to pay for the last guy to cash his in and be left with bupkis, either.
If I paid for it, quit treating it like welfare or Medicaid (which has better benefits), because I have been paying for that better coverage for people who aren't chipping in.
And don't even get me started on illegals being given gobs of freebies, either.
Sorry you don't like to hear the truth - and equally sorry that you continue to buy the lies you were fed - but you didn't pay for jack squat. You paid an additional income tax, nothing more, nothing less, and you have no greater claim to those funds than you have to the regular income taxes you paid as well.
Social security is nothing more than a welfare entitlement. One I happen to agree with, in general, as a matter of policy, but a welfare entitlement nonetheless.
What it most definitely is not is a vested benefit you paid for, as if you were purchasing on an installment plan a retirement annuity.
-
Social security is nothing more than a welfare entitlement. One I happen to agree with, in general, as a matter of policy, but a welfare entitlement nonetheless.
What it most definitely is not is a vested benefit you paid for, as if you were purchasing on an installment plan a retirement annuity.
That is the blunt truth of it, no matter how painful it may be to audience members.
-
Netflix has a good docuseries running on Madoff.
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.
-
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.
So damned true. Everything I invest in goes through the ringer of research.
And equity, fund, etc. 's (entity) self governance, review, and oversight should be the first item of review.
-
Social Security could have been a relatively harmless social safety net. Benefits originally were limited to those who had exceeded their life expectancy (age 62 in 1937). And so, the tax was only 1% from 1937-1950. It gradually became an irreversible nightmare Ponzi scheme.
-
Social Security could have been a relatively harmless social safety net. Benefits originally were limited to those who had exceeded their life expectancy (age 62 in 1937). And so, the tax was only 1% from 1937-1950. It gradually became an irreversible nightmare Ponzi scheme.
Agreed. And it still could be; unfortunately, bringing it back to its origins would entail a lot of political pain and the expenditure of a lot of political capital.
-
Stephen Miller
@StephenM
To my Republican friends: the only proposal you should be considering on Social Security & Medicare is ending mass unskilled migration in order to protect these programs for American Seniors who paid into them and depend on them. Ryanism is on the ash heap—leave it there forever.
8:22 PM · Jan 12, 2023
-
I retired at 55, so they put the screws to me too.
On the flip side, I'll be working until I am 75.
-
Social Security would be in a much better position if they stopped handing out Social Security benefits to people below retirement age. This accounts for 30% of total Social Security outlays.
-
Social Security would be in a much better position if they stopped handing out Social Security benefits to people below retirement age. This accounts for 30% of total Social Security outlays.
It could also be means tested.
-
Agreed. And it still could be; unfortunately, bringing it back to its origins would entail a lot of political pain and the expenditure of a lot of political capital.
To his credit, GWB pushed for this in 2006, just not very hard. But the cowardly Republican Congress folded like a 7-high hand.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So I guess we don't even question whether it is within the federal aegis anymore, huh? :whistle:
-
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.
-
So I guess we don't even question whether it is within the federal aegis anymore, huh? :whistle:
Repeal Amendment XVI.
-
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.
-
Why?
It is a welfare program already.
Then get rid of it.
-
So I guess we don't even question whether it is within the federal aegis anymore, huh? :whistle:
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).
-
Then get rid of it.
Why?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(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.
-
(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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Social Security would be solvent if our government would NOT have expanded benefits to people who were never supposed to receive benefits.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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
-
"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:
-
"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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!!!!!
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Finally, @Maj. Bill Martin you write something I can agree with.
-
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?"
-
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.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/StephenM/status/1614012396485459969
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
You have misrepresented what I posted.
I don't know how. And I certainly did not mean to.
-
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 :shrug: 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:yowsa: But whose tactics do we choose? As for me, I'm done with compromise and "wait until next year!"
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
@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! :beer:
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.
-
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.
-
:yowsa: 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.
-
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?
IMHO, the answer is No! That has historically been a province of the family and Church.
-
The bolded is true, but my parry was purely a matter of textual reality -- not textual or any real interpretation at all.
@Maj. Bill Martin
True enough. My statement centered on the interpretation thereof: Using the literal meaning of the words as you presented them (in defense of Social Security (and welfare)) as a direct assault upon the establishment of enumerated powers, which is the purpose of the document.
It is a particular peeve of mine, similarly found in Biblical verse-slingers... wherein the context is often lost upon the partial knowledge contained in the verse. I am a literalist when it comes to text, by the way, strictly so... But the course of that requires the whole text, to include context and intent.
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?
No... my only argument is the use there of - the literal use of the phrase cannot upend the enumerated powers as expressed... Or the document means nothing.
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.
Then you should have no argument with me at all, or @Hoodat either for that matter.
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:
Not really sure how I could have been more clear.
The first thought in bold (fully quoted here)
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?
... seems to be a defense of the liberal use of 'general welfare'... Admittedly the second bolded thought seemed a follow-through to the idea that even if the Constitution, the SCOTUS deemed otherwise... wrongly (politically) or not.
On a second read perhaps you've been playing devil's advocate a bit - But that still does not explain the obfuscation of the idea in your use of 'defending the elderly', which has never been the argument at all - The argument has always been whether it is within the purview of the federal government to provide those systems (social security and welfare) - An argument in which I stand vehemently against. The retirement and care of the elderly, the widow, and the cripple has never been in question - The question is who should (and should not) provide that care. And the federal government certainly should not. It is not within their authority.
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.
My argument precisely :beer: If 'general welfare' means 'anything', then the document means nothing.
-
IMHO, the answer is No! That has historically been a province of the family and Church.
CORRECT... Albeit that the states have historically participated, both in state run medical institutions and in bolstering the same at the county level (clinics and such). And I believe they have authority in that regard - that which is not enumerated in the constitution left to the states, and to the People... If the state constitution allows, or the people have granted, the states are not limited as the federal government is.
-
Again, looking at the math of it, all that is needed to guarantee a retirement salary equivalent to working salary is a rate of return of 4.4%. In other words, if government had taken those social security taxes and invested them in anything other than themselves (i.e. stock market, real estate, etc.), then every retiree would have enough money in that retirement account to live off of the interest at their base income rate over their working life, and when they die, hand off a sizeable inheritance to their descendants.
But our government didn't do that. Our government essentially embezzled that money and spent it on their own excesses. Constitutionally allowable or not, the people in our government who continue to push this embezzlement should be put on trial, convicted, and sentenced to decades in prison. There is nothing our government does that perpetrates more poverty in this country than Social Security. It is the most evil crime ever perpetrated upon the American people.
-
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789
President Biden’s budget for FY 2022 totals $6.011 trillion, eclipsing all other previous budgets.
Mandatory expenditures, such as Social Security, Medicare, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, account for about 65% of the budget.
Budget expenditures are estimated to exceed federal revenues by $1.873 trillion for FY 2022.
Most of these revenues come from taxes and earnings from quantitative easing.
In this budget that ran a deficit of 1.873 Trillion dollars interest on the debt was only about 300 Billion. The interest on the debt is about to explode for a bunch of reasons, but if we project a 4% interest rate on 30 Trillion dollars the deficit would have been 2.773 Trillion dollars.
IOW, we will won't be able to pay the interest on our debt and fund mandatory and discretionary spending at current levels much longer. The discretionary portion of the budget was around 1.8 Trillion. Interest on the debt was around 300 Billion and Mandatory spending was about 4 Trillion. If we eliminate all discretionary spending we still come up short and the interest payments are going to explode.
Everything is going to need to be cut, some more than others but everything will have to be cut.
-
Again, looking at the math of it, all that is needed to guarantee a retirement salary equivalent to working salary is a rate of return of 4.4%. In other words, if government had taken those social security taxes and invested them in anything other than themselves (i.e. stock market, real estate, etc.), then every retiree would have enough money in that retirement account to live off of the interest at their base income rate over their working life, and when they die, hand off a sizeable inheritance to their descendants.
But our government didn't do that. Our government essentially embezzled that money and spent it on their own excesses. Constitutionally allowable or not, the people in our government who continue to push this embezzlement should be put on trial, convicted, and sentenced to decades in prison. There is nothing our government does that perpetrates more poverty in this country than Social Security. It is the most evil crime ever perpetrated upon the American people.
I agree with your point about investing the money, but I don't want govt to be in that role. In short order the govt would be the largest shareholder of all the largest corporations in the country. If people were required to establish an IRA at their local financial institution, or through their employer, the same could be accomplished.
-
I agree with your point about investing the money, but I don't want govt to be in that role.
Agree 100%. The point is that government cannot be trusted.
-
Agree 100%. The point is that government cannot be trusted.
Not ever and we should know this!
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington
-
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
-Justice John Marshall-
-
Agree 100%. The point is that government cannot be trusted.
:amen:
They keep proving that over and over!
The problem we are going to have financially is I doubt the American people will ever ignore the lying politicians who say, "just make the rich pay their fair share". I don't believe getting to a sound fiscal position is going to be possible until then.