My Internal Conflict with SS and the Constitution (1 Viewer)

[Neomalthusian]

People wouldn't work less if they did not have SS, they would spend less.

They already spend less because social security taxes are withheld. If they weren't, people would have that much more to spend (or save).

This theory doesn't hold a bit of water.

 

[Flyersfan314]

People would save more for retirement Neo. You have not read my previous posts.

 

[LesGovt]

LessGovt you are right on private investment but it does not provide the security of SS. Private investment has to be the primary retirement method of individuals because SS payments are only about 12 grand a year. Yes the benefit of society is how we should do anything. If it doesn't benefit the people the government should not do it. By society I mean "we the people". People wouldn't work less if they did not have SS, they would spend less.

How does taxing people for an unconstitutional program benefit society? I don't believe that destroying the Constitution benefits society. Does taking money from one person and give it to another person benefit society? I believe it helps destroy society. I'll get to the security of private investment in a minute.

Yes SS will have some problems down the road but they can be remedied. It depends on how many children are being born and how many workers are int he workforce, how much the make, ect.

Under current trends and there is no reason to believe that current trends will change greatly, Social Security will become a drag on the deficits and changes will need to be made, i.e. raising the age, and/or having the "wealthy" pay for those who are not "wealthy." Again, this is not a benefit to society.

Now, about the security of the investments that I mentioned. Are T-Bills risky? Why? Are Certificates of Deposit risky? Why? Are mutual funds actually very risky. I don't think so. Personally, I wish that I had been investing in mutual funds for years prior to 2008 financial debacle and was 30 years old in 2008. Why? Do you have any thoughts on why I make that wish? As it is, I was working when the market fell more than anytime since the Great Depression. I retired in December 2009. The market had yet to fully recover from the drop. In fact, it still hasn't, but it will. Now, I did not begin investing in a 401k until 1992. So, I invested less than 20 years and stopped when the market had dropped and had not even recovered fully and had enough to retire. Now, think about starting at 16 investing in 401k-type accounts and investing for 50 years. Had I had the opportunity to invest when I was 16 and had done so, I would be quite wealthy now. Instead, I just have a comfortable retirement.

Question for you. The following is an example of investing. Would you like the scenario or not?

Invest Month 1 - $100, Price per Share $25
Invest Month 2 - $100, Price per Share $20
Invest Month 3 - $100, Price per Share $10
Invest Month 4 - $100, Price per Share $5
Invest Month 5 - $100, Price per Share $5
Invest Month 6 - $100, Price per Share $2
Invest Month 7 - $100, Price per Share $5
Invest Month 8 - $100, Price per Share $5
Invest Month 9 - $100, Price per Share $5
Invest Month 10 - $100, Price per Share $5
Invest Month 11 - $100, Price per Share $10
Invest Month 12 - $100, Price per Share $10


What two funds do you have?[/QUOTE]

First, these two accounts are guaranteed payout annuities. Each account invests in mutual funds and I can change the investment strategy depending on the market. Right now, I am seeking growth, but I just asked my advisor whether I should now shield myself from the market until the budget crisis ends. What companies they are with is important; however, which ones I have is not open for discussion here.

 

[Flyersfan314]

T-Bills and CD barely pay out more than you put in. If people invest a lot of money into these for retirement then they are not putting money into the economy. We can argue all day about the constitutionality, whether it is or not has no bearing on whether it is an economic benefit. People should and do invest in mutual funds and the like, nobody can or should retire off just SS alone. Having a diverse portfolio is a good thing.

Social Security down the road will have trouble, starting in about 2040. I am not arguing that.

 

[LesGovt]

T-Bills and CD barely pay out more than you put in. If people invest a lot of money into these for retirement then they are not putting money into the economy. We can argue all day about the constitutionality, whether it is or not has no bearing on whether it is an economic benefit. People should and do invest in mutual funds and the like, nobody can or should retire off just SS alone. Having a diverse portfolio is a good thing.

Social Security down the road will have trouble, starting in about 2040. I am not arguing that.

The T-Bills and CDs pay out based on the interest rate when you purchase them. Back in the 1990s, my mother was getting 5% from her T-Bills. That's better than SS. And you asked for safe. Well, they are as safe as SS. And, you did not address my thoughts on the hypothetical investments and results. Could you please tell me whether you like the result of those investments or dislike them?

As for constitutionality, I recognize that there is an element in society who see no benefit to having a constitutional government where the Constitution is the supreme power over laws. It is indeed sad to see, but I do recognize it.

 

[Flyersfan314]

You didnt give me the results of your investments. 5% from T-Bills is only better if you re investing a ton of money into them. Many people can't afford to invest 1000 bucks into a bill that only nets them 1,050 at 5$ interest at then maturity. How is that better than SS.

 

[LesGovt]

We can argue all day about the constitutionality... QUOTE]

I am not sure why we would argue all day about an obvious truth; however....

"The Framers believed that the national government could exercise only enumerated powers or powers necessary to carry out those enumerated, and no provision for the Constitution authorized the government to act on any natural rights." - Origins of the Bill of Rights by Leonard W. Levy, P. 20


"Charles Cotesworth Pinckney - Of the Framers, none was more suspicious of the dangers to liberty in an elaborate system of federal courts, empowered with authority over questions of constitutional interpretation, than was Pierce Butler, or more determined that the national legislature represent and protect property instead of some general notion of individual rights. Butler wanted members of Congress tied to the states by the manner of their election - in various legislatures - and, particularly in the case of the senators, by the source of their salaries. He spoke openly of the possibility of future revolts following "encroachments" upon the states; opposed giving Congress veto power over laws made in the states; and called for sharp, enumerated restrictions upon the scope and authority of the proposed Senate and House of Representatives." - Founding Fathers, by M.E. Bradford, p. 199

"The most notable change the committee of detail proposed in its report was to replace the open-ended formula previously used to describe the legislative authority of the Union with a list of specific powers…Even as augmented by the proposals that Madison and Pinckney had referred to the committee of detail, this list generated little sustained debate. The clause that proved most controversial during the ratification debate - authorizing Congress to "make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution its enumerated powers - was unanimously approved on August 20 after only a brief discussion." - Original Meanings, Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, by Jack N. Rakove, p. 84

"This being so, within the week Paterson was encouraged to introduce his own state-oriented plan. Instead of providing for powers to pass laws in all cases in which the states were incompetent, his New Jersey Plan would limit Congress to the powers enumerated in the Articles of Confederation and, in addition, to the following specifically enumerated powers: the adoption of certain revenue laws, the regulation of foreign and interstate commerce, the establishment of federal courts, and the provision for a uniform rule of naturalization. Most important, the plan would retain the provisions in the Articles regarding the equality of congressional representation for each state." - Negotiating the Constitution, The Earliest Debates Over Original Intent, by Joseph M. Lynch, p. 13

"When the convention reconvened on August 6, the committee on detail laid before the delegates a plan of government embodying the decisions thus far made. The basic outline still followed the Virginia Plan. The most significant departure, and a surprise to most of the delegates, was the substitution of enumerated powers of Congress for the blanket power "to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent." Now, probably with Madison's approval, the convention, especially the large states that dominated the committee of detail, sought to define the powers of a legislature liable to control by the inequitably apportioned Senate." - James Madison, A Biography, by Ralph Ketcham, p. 220

The above are just a few comments by historians reporting on just the Constitutional Convention about the enumerated clauses of Article I, section 8. Next will be the ratification effort.

 

[LesGovt]

You didnt give me the results of your investments. 5% from T-Bills is only better if you re investing a ton of money into them. Many people can't afford to invest 1000 bucks into a bill that only nets them 1,050 at 5$ interest at then maturity. How is that better than SS.

I didn't gave you the results of the investment. Look at it again and see if you can compute the result yourself.

As for the T-Bills, you are talking about by today's methods. If they became a choice for investing, the rules could be changed so that you invest per paycheck and could get an established rate. I bet the Feds would love that. The T-Bill my mother had was 5% per annum.

 

[Flyersfan314]

Changing the rates and rules on the T-Bills would be a good idea LessGovt. If we were both congressmen we could author the LessGov-Flyersfan Treasure Department Reform Bill 2011. I don't disagree with what you have quoted.

 

[Mach]

Having the constitution prohibit something that is a benefit to we the people is also meaningless. The constitution was written nearly 250 years ago. How would a convention be forcing my personnel belief?

No no, because everyone has their own version of what is a benefit!!! Hitler was convinced genocide was a BENEFIT. That's an extreme cliche example, but make a spectrum of all such personal "benefits", and the point is, it's not governments business to dictate it! I'm sure a majority of Americans are Christian, doesn't make "christian values" legislated, a good idea, even though they *feel* it benefits society!! It's the ENTIRE point!
Some parents want to spank, some don't. Both love their kids, and both kids likely grow up just the same anyway

Life hasn't changed in terms of human wants and needs in thousands of years, 250 years is nothing. Just look at the tea party. Many people who currently DEPEND on SS/MC, want to also reform it! Liberals go nuts at this thinking they are dumb-**** hicks. They cannot comprehend that someone may actually believe that paying ones way via work, is healthy for a society, even at their own personal selfish loss of SS/MC (which won't happen). Already we have people that say it's NOT a benefit. Hence, the political debate. But the question is, should it even be allowed in the first place?

Government welfare was a knee-jerk reaction to market failures. There are other ways to solve that.

I will not sit here and say regulations would turn out any better, because I have no idea. One could argue that SS/MC while deeply flawed, are the only practical way to regulate a primarily private market system. But that's a debate we can certainly hash out. For example, what other systems in private markets function best when you don't fix best practice, cost controls, etc. (like regulation), and instead just let things go crazy, and provide a safety net underneath? I don't know of many, maybe some here have some good analogies.

 

[LesGovt]

We can argue all day about the constitutionality...

I am not sure why we would argue all day about an obvious truth; however....

"Many Federalists considered the eloquent pleas of Antifederalist leaders for a bill of rights during the ratification campaign as merely a ruse to cover opposition to a Constitution that threatened their political bases by restricting state sovereignty. Federalists generally opposed amendments, arguing that the Constitution should be allowed a trial period for problems to emerge. They claimed that a bill of rights was unnecessary since most of the states had bills of rights, and the federal government created by the Constitution was limited and could not interfere with these rights. A federal bill of rights might even endanger liberties because it included only certain specified rights, leaving others unprotected, and implied that the federal government had the power to decide which rights to guarantee." - Creating The Bill of Rights, The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress, Edited by Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R. Bowling, and Charlene Bangs Bickford - p. ix & x

"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction." - James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 6, 1788, Elliot's Debates

"The gentleman supposes that complete and unlimited legislation is vested in the Congress of the United States. This supposition is founded on false reasoning. What is the present situation of this state? She has possession of all rights of sovereignty, except those given to the Confederation. She must delegate powers to the confederate government. It is necessary for her public happiness. Her weakness compels her to confederate with the twelve other governments. She trusts certain powers to the general government, in order to support, protect, and defend the Union. Now, is there not a demonstrable difference between the principle of the state government and of the general government? There is not a word said, in the state government, of the powers given to it, because they are general. But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it?--for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless." - Edmund Randolph's address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 17, 1788

"He was at pains to demonstrate that the states - the delegates were thinking in terms of New York, of course - would not be extinguished in the national plan. The central government and the state governments were coordinate, each with its sphere, the one general, and the others particular to the concerns of their limited communities." - Alexander Hamilton, A Concise Biography, by Broadus Mitchell, p. 165

"In the First Congress the seams of the compromise became visible. Some men, like Hamilton, who were committed to a government with power to legislate in the general interests of the nation, chose to ignore what was stated in the Federalist and in the state conventions concerning the limited meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause." - Negotiating the Constitution, The Earliest Debates Over Original Intent, by Joseph M. Lynch, p. 10

The first list of postings had to do with the Constitutional Convention. The above quotations concern the topic of limited government and are primarily from the Ratification Conventions. More from the days of the Ratification Era will be posted soon.

 

[Flyersfan314]

Everyone has their own versions but clearly killing off a productive segment of the population is not a benefit to the society as a whole. Taking away peoples guns is not productive because it endangers the citizens. A benefit is not a matter of opinion it is fact supported by research and other facts.

 

[Flyersfan314]

If powers are limited to those enumerated why are taxes only mentioned in the first clause? SS is a tax and the government is distributing it just like they would with subsidies, or certain military projects. Most powers are specific, but it strikes me that taxes don;t have more guidance compared to the rest of things.

 

[LesGovt]

If powers are limited to those enumerated why are taxes only mentioned in the first clause? SS is a tax and the government is distributing it just like they would with subsidies, or certain military projects.

Why are taxes mentioned? They are mentioned because under the Articles of Confederation the central government was dependent upon requisitions for funds and often they were not paidl. The amount they can tax is unlimited. The items for expenditure are enumerated. They are no longer followed, but the are enumerated.

 

[Flyersfan314]

I never asked why taxes are mentioned...I am aware how our troops in the Rev War weren't paid because the fed could get money. We can't have a productive conversation if you don;t read my posts.

 

[LesGovt]

If powers are limited to those enumerated why are taxes only mentioned in the first clause?

Here is where I thought you asked.

 

[Flyersfan314]

not why are they mentioned but why are they mentioned only in the first clause. I don't see SS different than many other taxes.

 

[LesGovt]

not why are they mentioned but why are they mentioned only in the first clause. I don't see SS different than many other taxes.

Sorry, I guess I did not understand your question. As for taxes, I don't them different either and the Supreme Court said they were constitutional. It's not the raising of funds that is unconstitutional. It is what the funds are spent for.

Now that I understand your question, the reason that you only find taxes mentioned in the first clause is that is where the authority to tax is given. There was no need to authorize it again.

 

[Иосиф Сталин]

Social Security shouldn't be touched. Anybody who abolishes it should be considered an enemy of the American people and held accountable for his criminal actions.

 

[LesGovt]

Social Security shouldn't be touched. Anybody who abolishes it should be considered an enemy of the American people and held accountable for his criminal actions.

Yes sir, el dictator!

 

[Neomalthusian]

Social Security shouldn't be touched. Anybody who abolishes it should be considered an enemy of the American people and held accountable for his criminal actions.

"Anybody who abolishes it?"

lol

What a troll.

 

[Catawba]

When did America become a deadbeat country that is not responsible to repay its debts! Let's not forget, SS has not created our nations debt problem, it is a victim of it. When the trillions are repaid that have been borrowed from it for wars and a sundry of other uses, it will once again be solvent.

We don't have a SS problem, we have a general fund problem.

 

[solletica]

Is there a law anywhere that actually requires the govt to pay out SS checks? As far as I'm aware, SS is not an enforceable legal contract, but merely a handout used by Congress to appease the (gullible) over-65 middle class.

 

[solletica]

When did America become a deadbeat country that is not responsible to repay its debts!

Ever since right wingers were granted the right to vote. Sounds like a generalization, but it's 100% true. The GOP, with its penchant for reckless deficit-funded wasteful military expenditures, caused the debt.

 

[LesGovt]

Changing the rates and rules on the T-Bills would be a good idea LessGovt. If we were both congressmen we could author the LessGov-Flyersfan Treasure Department Reform Bill 2011. I don't disagree with what you have quoted.

Getting this topic back on topic once more after some diversionary postings, I missed this posting somehow. So, would you now be for allowing people to opt out of Social Security and into a private plan?