Posted on 12/12/2008 10:18:17 PM PST by jackmercer
This was so quick that I had to go to the website to do a double take. But did Rush Limbaugh make an argument against privatizing Social Security on Friday or was he being facetitious? I am looking at it in context and it seems like he was serious:
"Have you heard about this guy in New York that was running this $50 billion Ponzi scheme? He was the former head of NASDAQ. Folks, do you know how many charlatan cheats there are in the financial asset management industry?
"It's a crapshoot. This is why I didn't stay in it very long. I never did, instinctively, understand why I should give people who had less money than I have my money to manage. If they were so smart at it, they'd have more than I do. If they ever get hold of Social Security, it could be trouble. This guy was running a Ponzi scheme." (bold emphasis is mine, not Rush's)
Thank God Rush escaped this guy.
sw
This is just plain false. We are in it because it is the law that we must be in it.
You really need to read Atlas Shrugged. At it’s inception, the social security tax was about 1% and it was a very narrow program, an actual “safety net”, now the social security tax is over 12% of your income preventing many from saving privately. Also so much is siphoned off that if you are lucky enough to live to collect any, it will never be enough to provide for any sort of dignified retirement.
Yes, the majority love it, but as Benjamin Franklin said, if the people ever figure out that they can vote themselves money from the public purse, it will be the death knell of the Republic. It is a slow painful death, but at least we have ringside seats.
Your data is correct, especially about SS. What is integral to managing “social assets” is integrity. And that’s the problem. People are voting in people on “celebrityness” and a “what’s in it for me” rather that on principles about who and what they are voting for.
I love your attitude!
“Dumb people would blow all their income on consumption and would be in a bad situation during hard times. But why should I have to subsidize their bad behavior if I prepared adequately?”
Your point is very well taken, but... what happens when the raw numbers of folks exercising “bad behavior” begins to catch up to - or even overtakes - those others who behaved well and made good investment decisions?
That’s a recipe for social disaster. We are seein some parallels to that right now, with many people who loaded up their 401k’s - and who have seen the value of those accounts go up in smoke over the last few months. Yes, some will recover, but what of the others?
Don’t think that others’ “bad behavior” due to bad judgement could impact YOU? My FRiend, look at the election results from November 4th. Those making bad decisions have EXACTLY the same voting power as you do (one man, one vote). And the problem is there is getting to be so many of them lately!
Sometimes things are best viewed in hindsight. The recent financial collapse of both the credit and stock markets has provided us with a real-life illustration of why completely “privatizing” Social Security would lead only to financial chaos for many, resulting in political chaos for even more. Even Rush realizes this now.
It was a great-sounding idea, for a while.
Until the hidden risks were shown to be real.
It ain’t gonna happen, ever.
Time to move on to the problems that CAN be solved...
- John
Wrong. Social security is a voluntary contract. You have to sign up for it to get a number. They don’t automatically enroll you in it.
It makes life tougher not to have one, but millions of illegals can get by without one.
Socialist Security is the greatest fraud ever FORCED on “free people”. Just let me opt out. I will never ask for one dime.
Laws stick when they are found not to be unconstitutional. And that happened twice. It doesn’t have to be written verbatim in the constitution to be allowed, it has to survive a constitutional challenge.
Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) decision on unemployment insurance in the Social Security act. “Court dealt positively with expenditure of funds to advance the general welfare as specified in Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution.”
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), “The Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress’s general taxation powers.”
Many other components of the New Deal were found unconstitutional like the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Railroad Retirement Act and even New York State’s minimum-wage law. I can’t explain how those were constitutional and thus they were found to be illegal and ceased.
“Thank God Rush escaped this guy.”
I think you are the one that missed the point. Look at the context, he was speaking of money managers such as Madoff working with zero accountability, not government officials subject to electoral review.
He then went on to make the point about “charlatans” controlling 12% of GDP in SS and having them pull something like this with that money and the disaster that would ensue.
He specifically used the word “crapshoot” meaning independent investments which of course are a gamble and should be. The word “crapshoot” is a direct contrast to SS which is a guaranteed annuity backed by the GDP of the United States. Limbaugh is actually being lucid here, that is why I was so surprised and started the thread to begin with.
“That’s the whole point of having government, to meet the changing attitudes and desires of a people.”
I’m amazed to read such views as yours expressed on a conservative website.
The fundamental point of government in America is to protect and defend God-given liberties. That’s it.
Government which oversteps its bounds - even if sanctioned by majority vote - is lawless.
“I’m amazed to read such views as yours expressed on a conservative website.
The fundamental point of government in America is to protect and defend God-given liberties. That’s it.
Government which oversteps its bounds - even if sanctioned by majority vote - is lawless.”
First, the fundamental point of government is indeed to protect liberties. But governments often go beyond fundamentals to improve economies and conditions of a country. Such as Jefferson’s push for publicly funded and required education, Lincoln’s push for waterway and road improvement projects to boost trade or Eisenhower’s interstate contruction projects. None of these are mandated by the constitution but are not unconstitutional if passed.
Your said “Government which oversteps its bounds - even if sanctioned by majority vote - is lawless.”
But government which oversteps its bounds by passing a law, even if the law is sanctioned by majority vote, is by definition, found to have passed an unconstitutional law and the law is ceased. Did you not see that glaring oxymoron of a statement?
If government wants a law, because a majority wants it, then it passes and becomes law. Then it is subject to constitutional scrutiny if pressed in the courts. If ultimately the Supreme Court (or lower courts with a SC deferral) rules that it is unconstitutional, then the government is said to have overstepped its bounds. If however it is found not to be unconstitutional, then the government is said to have not overstepped its bounds.
Read all of my posts in this thread and then you will see how silly your notion is in the context of this discussion. Especially the posts about clarification of direct democracy vs a constitutional replublic. I have no illusions as to which we are in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.