Are Social Security "Privitization" Schemes Unconstitutional?

NigelTufnel said:
I didn't say dick about politicians, did I? Neither did tinfoil, did he? Instead, he said that private accounts "were never ever even talked about as mandatory."

So, thanks for chiming in, cawacko, but you can go fuck yourself in the ear with a chainsaw.
Click to expand...

how has that turned out for you nigel?
 
Longshot said:
Hey Fuzzy,

Congress clearly has the power to tax, but I don't see a grant of power to issue retirement monies.
Click to expand...

Hey, Longshot.. You'll notice they are very combative here.

I think that clearly would fall under the spending clause, if it falls under the Taxing clause. It's essentially what they are doing now except with the novel approach that a 1/3 of it remains under your personal control as an asset. The pretty much keep accounting of how much you’ve contributed to Medicare and SS in order to receive benefits. This just adds a third component.
 
apple0154 said:
Exactly. I don't know why people have difficulty understanding that. The Preamble makes it clear the purpose of the Constitution, and thus the government, is to promote the general welfare. Addressing and attempting to rectify the problem of millions starving and becoming homeless, the destitute elderly, surely falls under general welfare.
Click to expand...
There it is again: the same old tired bullshit which only shows your COMPLETE lack of understanding of the Constitution.

The preamble states the purpose for the Constitution. Articles I-VII, plus the B.O.R and following amendments state HOW we attain that purpose set out in the preamble. And, in the end, as is supported by the ENTIRETY of the Constitution, the baseline method to achieve the goals of forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, (note the word PROMOTING, as opposed to the word PROVIDING which is used in the preceding phrase) and securing the blessings of liberty, are BEST met by designing a LIMITED central government with specified, enumerated powers, and with MOST governmental power (supposed to be) remaining with the states, with the people in charge of it all.

Note how the preamble is worded. ... IN ORDER TO (accomplish this set of goals, we) do ordain and establish this Constitution...

But you STILL won't (not don't, but WON'T) get it, will you? The Constitution itself, and the DESIGN of the government outlined in the Constitution, is HOW we are supposed to accomplish the goals set forth. It was NOT written so some lame brained big mommy government twit can come along and say "we're supposed to be promoting (read providing) for the general welfare, and that justifies these actions. Sorry, that simply does not wash. LIMITED central government, and guaranteed individual liberties are how we promote the general welfare, along with all the other goals.
 
Good Luck said:
There it is again: the same old tired bullshit which only shows your COMPLETE lack of understanding of the Constitution.

The preamble states the purpose for the Constitution. Articles I-VII, plus the B.O.R and following amendments state HOW we attain that purpose set out in the preamble. And, in the end, as is supported by the ENTIRETY of the Constitution, the baseline method to achieve the goals of forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, (note the word PROMOTING, as opposed to the word PROVIDING which is used in the preceding phrase) and securing the blessings of liberty, are BEST met by designing a LIMITED central government with specified, enumerated powers, and with MOST governmental power (supposed to be) remaining with the states, with the people in charge of it all.

Note how the preamble is worded. ... IN ORDER TO (accomplish this set of goals, we) do ordain and establish this Constitution...

But you STILL won't (not don't, but WON'T) get it, will you? The Constitution itself, and the DESIGN of the government outlined in the Constitution, is HOW we are supposed to accomplish the goals set forth. It was NOT written so some lame brained big mommy government twit can come along and say "we're supposed to be promoting (read providing) for the general welfare, and that justifies these actions. Sorry, that simply does not wash. LIMITED central government, and guaranteed individual liberties are how we promote the general welfare, along with all the other goals.
Click to expand...

This is a republic. If people don't like social security then get politicians elected that share similar views, all the current politicians find social perfectly constitutional.
 
Yurt said:
does anyone know how much the govenrment has raided SS for?
Click to expand...
ALL of it, that is not used immediately for SS payments.

By law, all FICA funds in excess of meeting obligatory SS payments are transferred to the Social Security Trust Fund. (Trust - now there's a laugh!!)

Also, by law, all trust fund revenues are "invested" in United States Treasury Notes. This is a law which seems, on the surface, to be reasonable, right? It's stupid to just let the money lie there, stuffed under a congressional mattress, so we invest it, right?

What most people do not think about though, is that by using the trust fund dollars to buy T-notes, it transfers that money into the GENERAL FUND. When anyone buys a T-note, it is general fund revenue. T-note revenues can be spent ANY WAY THEY WANT TO!!!

And that is how they get away with fucking the SS fund. They wrote laws which literally REQUIRE them to do so.
 
hotdog said:
This is a republic. If people don't like social security then get politicians elected that share similar views, all the current politicians find social perfectly constitutional.
Click to expand...
Is there ONE word in my post claiming Social Security is unconstitutional?

Try again. Strawman arguments are for children, of which this board already has too many.
 
FuzzyBunny said:
Hey, Longshot.. You'll notice they are very combative here.

I think that clearly would fall under the spending clause, if it falls under the Taxing clause. It's essentially what they are doing now except with the novel approach that a 1/3 of it remains under your personal control as an asset. The pretty much keep accounting of how much you’ve contributed to Medicare and SS in order to receive benefits. This just adds a third component.
Click to expand...
I've always agreed with Madison's explanation that the spending clause gave Congress power only to spend for purposes otherwise enumerated in the Constitution, not for any purpose at all.

If one argues that the spending clause empowered Congress to spend for any purpose at all, then one would have to explain the remaining clauses in Article I, Section 8. What possible purpose would they serve?
 
Bfgrn said:
Really?

On any given day, any of us can be involuntarily thrust into the "stream" of health care commerce by an involuntary disaster. Then the only question is: will we, or won't we, have a paddle?

When life and limb are imperiled, we intervene -- and worry about the bill afterward. Human decency requires nothing less.

But afterward, there IS a bill -- and someone has to pay it. Leaving out the details, that someone will be us. It will be paid through our taxes, or paid in our health premiums. In other words, we, the insured, ARE being forced to 'enter the stream of commerce' involuntarily, to pay the bills of those who opted out. Bad enough to be forced to buy something for yourself -- how about being forced to buy something for the other guy, who opted out of the system and left the bill to you and me? ref
Click to expand...

really?....yes.....you realize of course we were talking about Social Security, not the health care bill....
 
NigelTufnel said:
Frankly, I haven't seen any actual plan. I have seen summaries of what people would like to see happen with SS, but I haven't seen any actual plans. Can you link a few for me?
Click to expand...

Exactly. There are no plans that FORCE people to invest in private accounts. Thanks for once again proving what a moronic hack you are.

Social Security ........ isn't...... an investment....... plan.
Click to expand...

Insurance IS an investment you moron.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????....you must be a life insurance salesman....they're the only ones I can think of that would believe insurance is an investment....
Click to expand...

I am a financial adviser. If you don't think insurance is an investment, then you are right in line with the majority of a mis-informed public. Insurance can be a tremendous investment vehicle. A universal life policy is like a Roth IRA on crack. But like any investment vehicle, you have to use it properly. If not, it can hurt your portfolio. Educate yourself before making snide comments on topics you clearly have no understanding of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top