Social Security

John 308 post s 5-Apr-2008 12:53 PM	Social Security has been before the Supreme Court, when it first began (1937). The Court approved it based on the "provide for the general welfare" clause. You can argue against their reasoning but they did declare it Constitutional. SS is not a retirement plan (you don't get back what you paid in). It is a tax/insurance plan to make sure older workers have a reliable, minimum income. It is a contract between generations. Personally I'd like to see it go away but that's not going to happen. Also, I think threats of its immanent collapse are exaggerated.
TheMudge The Real Mudge 2633 post s 5-Apr-2008 9:45 PM	"Personally I'd like to see it go away . . . ." Care to elaborate on that? Why? Just curious. ---------- Rich Turner (The Curmudgeon Himself)
Bradd 444 post s 6-Apr-2008 4:50 PM	"...a contract between generations". That has a nice ring to it - neighborly-like.
Pogo 293 post s 7-Apr-2008 8:09 AM	Cardozo's Court did not understand the meaning of "general welfare." 1788 dictionary or no! The only reason Social Security was approved at all was FDR's threat to pack the Court. Social Security website's Court history page When I learned how Social Security worked, when I was about 14, I yelped, "It's a Ponzi scheme!" I have wanted it phased out ever since. Since then, Social Security has grown and grown and grown, covering lots more than retirement! It was originally intended to provide one-third of what a retiree needed, the other two-thirds to come from his employer's retirement plan and his own savings. Even then, it was unConstitutional.
John 309 post s 9-Apr-2008 4:52 PM	I'd rather have the SS money myself to do with as I see fit. Even though in my case, if I live to the expected age, I will get more out of SS than I put in. Another thing is that the gov't uses it as a slush fund. They fund all kinds of stuff they couldn't otherwise by borrowing against it. Less gov't spending is a good thing, IMO.
CeeBee 1662 post s 9-Apr-2008 9:32 PM	So, John, if there had been no S.S., would you have saved $XX out of each paycheck (and invested it wisely) in order to have a regular income in your old age? What if you would have needed, or thought you needed, that money for something vital, like a child's college education or a house or a car? or would you have left it alone for your old age? If you used all or part of it during your lifetime, what would you live on in your old age? What if you had become disabled during your lifetime? Would you have had savings to fall back on until you die? Last Edited on 9-Apr-2008 9:34 PM
Bradd 450 post s 9-Apr-2008 10:11 PM	CeeBee has struck at the heart of the matter. What if invested funds become deliverable at a time when the market is down? How many of us are capable of intelligently investing money when even the best of Wall Street find themselves in dire circumstances, as is the current case? Can you spell MCI, Enron, etc. - billions of pension dollars were lost when these organizations played with the numbers. Better a guaranteed amount than a shaky wudda-been. As to government sticking its head in where it doesn't belong - what would you like to change? Child labor laws, minimum wage, 8-hour days, unemployment insurance, national defense, etc., etc, etc.??? The problem with social security is 1) its regressive tax nature, and, 2) politicians dipping into the fund. Eliminate both and the problem disappears.
Pogo 304 post s 10-Apr-2008 7:58 AM	That's the Federal government sticking its head in. Of the items you mention, only one is, according to the Constitution, the business of the Federal government: national defense.
John 310 post s 10-Apr-2008 1:01 PM	Why don't I just let the Federal gov't determine how to spend all my money, since they know best what to do with it. I don't know if I would have saved for retirement but I would at least have liked to have the option. SS won't cover all my expenses, and it wouldn't if I was disabled. Gotta save for retirement anyway.
TheMudge The Real Mudge 2643 post s 10-Apr-2008 7:24 PM	Does anybody here recognize that, if the Constitution had to cover all laws that govern the land, we'd be adding to it and amending it constantly? (According to the Constitution itself, that's a long and involved process.) It's absurd to insist that every legal detail be spelled out specifically in the Constitution. The purpose of Constitutional law is to determine whether specific laws are in accord with the principles of the Constitution – and that's what the Supreme Court is all about. Unless you happen to have a degree in Constitutional law, you probably aren't qualified to state whether a specific law is Constitutional or not. ---------- Rich Turner (The Curmudgeon Himself) Last Edited on 10-Apr-2008 7:27 PM
John 311 post s 11-Apr-2008 2:14 PM	Hey, the Constitution is a "big picture" document! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Perhaps none of us are schooled in Constitutional law, but we can read the Constitution (it's fairly simple and not very long) and form opinions about it. In fact the founding fathers were counting on a well-informed citizenry and the day we give up our positions to an elite class is the day democracy dies. I was watching Justice Scalia talk to a group of law students last night (yes, I watch C-SPAN). While I'm not as constructionist as he is, I generally like what he has to say. He said most issues that come before the court are moral issues that should be debated in a democratic setting and decided by Congress or state legislatures. But I wonder if we can see these issues as protecting people's rights. Abortion, protecting the rights of people not yet born, or the death penalty, protecting the rights of the defendant. He also said wiretapping is not covered by the Fourth amendment, because it is a conversation, not a "person, house, paper or effect." Interesting take I never heard before.
Pogo 327 post s 14-Apr-2008 9:22 AM	The Constitution is written in English, not in legalese. The difficulty comes when our legislators, most of whom have law degrees, parse the poor thing as if it were in legalese.

«Back