I never said that. I said the people's power to disrupt the government after they've established it by voting is limited. That means we can't do whatever we want. The Constitution already establishes the extent of the government's power, but that is a somewhat seperate subject.
Not exactly sure you could attribute that to SS. You could attribute that to stupid, inefficient government as a whole.
One is a matter of practicality and the other a philosophical one, the way our government was meant to be. If we suddenly got a tyrannical gOvernment, we probably couldnt do much. We don't have the tanks...i am confused (admittedly, a frequent state). do you stand by the above post or this one?
Its not jsut the fact that it hasn't been overturned, it hasn't even been challenged in a serious way before, at least not that I've ever heard. Given its 70 year history, I would think that somewhere along the line it becomes evident it is constitutional for any number of reasons.
And those powers are very, very limited. It does not include the power to determine the constitutionality of legislative/executive actions.
Its more than what they were, it was what we needed at the time. Back then, we needed a level of facist control over the country, and we needed someone to take charge.
We didn't need that now, though we needed it to a small extent following 9/11 IMO, and we got it.
It succeeded, the supreme court let him get away with his nonsense.
Sorry, I was confused by your previous post. You were Talking about the constitution and said the powers reserved to the people are very limited, when in reality our powers should encompass everything besides what the govt is specifically authorized to do.
Get away as in not impeach him, or act against him?
70 years isn't that long and the fact that a lot of judges rely on stare decisis is problematic.
Sure it does, a lot of the FF's thought we should use nullification in the event of unconstitutional actions by the feds.
That's nonsense.
FDR was a great sales man, he tricked a lot of people into believing that what he did was even successful, as far as economic policy goes, but it wasn't.
Reading the letters and journals of his appointments reveals, they didn't know what they were doing.
They didn't vote against his contested policies, after the threat of court packing.
Its long enough for a challenge to be made against SS. Without respecting precedent, we'd put a lot of decision-making ability on thousands of judges across the country, and that would make everything a lot more complicated, and more likely to get messed up.
That argument ended along with the Civil War.
Even pretending to know what you're doing is taking charge. We needed a strong executive and thats what FDR was.
I don't think that would have had any effect on their decisions. It was obvious the scheme was unconstitutional on its face, and was not going to get anywhere with Congress.
You're kidding right?
There have been at least 2 times in the past that free speech has been curtailed against the government.
It was passed by congress.
which two times are you referencing?
As a child I like the idea, however when I become an adult, I would say I need to be responsible for myself. And I don't have any disabilities or problems that prevent me from taking care of myself without external care of some sort. The biggest thing about SS to me thats wrong with it is the precedent it sets. It coddles people, and we need to become more independent, and more aware of our economic states rather than less, which is what SS encourages, IMO.
So what?
That doesn't mean it was right.
It does give me power, it says so right there in the Constitution.
The powers not delegated to the government are delegated to the states or the people.
I am one of the people.
I find it so ironic that you decry Bush, yet support a president who was infinitely more fascist than Bush ever was or could be. :doh
If it was extremely well managed the money wouldn't have been spent to cause an internal government debt.
Eh, I question your source.
Just shows that it has been the realty. You didn't address my observation, "And even the Conservative court has not overturned SS on Constitutional grounds."
That is correct, and we the people have the power to change our government through our votes.
I don't only defend Obama in areas where it is deserved. You haven't seen me defending his continuance of the so called "war on terror" have you? And you haven't seen me defending his continuance of a bloated, imperialistic-sized military have you?
The fund was extremely well managed, and it was routinely robbed. Two different things. Did you vote for the candidated that proposed locking the funds from being robbed?
The Roaring Twenties were a time of unprecedented prosperity.
False. Elected officials do not have the right to do anything they please.
Except when one group, absolutely refuses to let another, live their life as they see fit.
Not two different things at all.
If it were well managed, then it would not have been taken from, by the managers.
It's a contradictory statement.
I was not old enough to vote for Al Gore, nor any other.
Which group would that be?
Too bad you didn't vote for the candidate that proposed locking those funds from that very thing, huh? We get the government we deserve.
Well, fortunately all that's needed is to lock the funds and increase the FICA cap.
SS is all that stands between 40% of our elderly falling into povery. It is too important to not properly protect.
"When Social Security (SS) was signed into law in 1935, the poverty rate among seniors exceeded 50%. As far as I know, there were no private retirement programs at that time. Unless a senior was wealthy, they either had to work until they died or depend upon family to care for them. I will not go into the discrimination (against women, minorities, and certain types of employment) that was later legislated out of the original bill but, in general, for the first time this country took a stand that protected many, but not all, of the elderly from abject poverty. Today, it is estimated that all that stands between poverty and 40% of the elderly is Social Security.
As first established, the payroll tax to fund the system flowed into the general revenue fund for the federal government. However, in 1939, Congress created the Social Security Trust Fund to manage surplus funds and this Trust had the power to invest the surplus in marketable and non-marketable securities. In other words, like a private retirement account, the growth of surplus funds was intended to handle future retirements. In 2007, according to one source, there was a cumulative surplus of $2.2 trillion dollars in taxes and interest after benefits were paid.
Unfortunately, the Trust loans any excess money to the federal government in the form of bonds, giving Congress a ready source of funds. Of course these bonds have to be repaid, with interest, by more taxes later. The system is in trouble because the government borrowed the surplus, spent it, and now does not have the resources to repay the Trust. The way it looks, Bush was correct in referring to these bonds as “just IOUs that I saw firsthand.”
In 2000, during the Presidential campaign, Al Gore talked about placing Social Security funds into a “lock box.” Everybody laughed at him and thought the idea of a “lock box” was silly. Essentially, what Gore proposed was to stop lending surplus funds to the government. He wanted SS and Medicare placed off-limits to politicians. If this had happened, and that is a very big IF, projections were that SS would be self-sustaining, essentially forever.
The current debate would lead one to think that SS is a flawed system. Not so. It is the huge debt owed the Trust by the government that is the problem. The flaw is that both parties raped the system by “borrowing” the surplus with no plan to repay it and now we have to deal with the consequences.
Unless the current commission working on the problem demands that any and all surplus funds be placed off limits to politicians, there will be no effective solution. Keep the surplus money in a “lock box” where it belongs. And demand that the government make yearly contributions until the bonds have been repaid. There is no need to increase the retirement age or raise payroll taxes or reduce benefits. Stop lending the excess to fund other programs."
Social Security and the
Your group, the one so resistant to change.
With all that nonsense said, SS is inherently discriminatory against black males.
See they have lower life expectancies and for a long time, it meant that on average they weren't even likely to receive it in the first place.
There is no good reason why mandatory private accounts shouldn't exist, you just continue to make excuses to preserve the status quo, when that status quo has been horribly mismanaged.
If both parties caused the mismanagement, change it so neither party can mismanage it ever again.
You take it away from them.
You mean the middle class?
So your suggestion is to lowere the age to collect benefits for black males? I'll go along with you on that.
And what happens to those mandatory private accounts if the institution holding them declares bandruptsy? Makes much more sense to simply lock the funds as Gore proposed and raise the FICA cap. Problem solved without the risks for 40% of our elderly in the private market.
That would be throwing the baby out with the bath water when it is not necessary. Beides, 80% of Americans want to keep SS, so scrapping it is just not going to happen.
No I mean the people who don't have any understanding of what the political economy is.
Those that think they can continually band aid problems caused by legislation, with more legislation.
80% of Americans think SS is important. I'm with them. Throwing half our elderly to the wolves as you propose is not a viable option.
No I suggest we stop having social security.
You are in a very tiny minority. Fortunately, we have a representative government.
All of these institutions are insured, all of them.
They have private insurance beyond the measly 250k that the government grants.
So no pensions have been lost in private markets?
No it doesn't make sense, not at all it's just another band aid and wealth transfer scheme.
The lock box will never be permanently locked, as we have already experienced.
A Constitutional Amendment will prevent it from happening.
Geesh, why do you propose to do things that have been shown not to work?
It has worked spectactularly well. When SS was created, 50% of the elderly lived in poverty. Its not hard to see why there is no interest in returning to that situation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?