“Can you tell me where the government is tasked with taking care of each individual citizen’s retirement needs?”
Yes, the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He proposed it, the people voted for him and the Congress, and they implemented it. That’s how the system works. Yes, he overreached his mandate and those were later corrected by subsequent Republican Congresses and administrations.
But the same happened with education. The government was never tasked by the constitution to provide guaranteed education for every American. But some of the founding fathers saw something that they thought was beneficial and necessary, proposed it to the people, the people concurred and it was implemented. Read Jefferson’s views on it here: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1370.htm
The point is that the people, or at least a majority, task administrations and congress to do things all the time and they are implemented. That’s the whole point of having government, to meet the changing attitudes and desires of a people.
In the 1920s if a roofer fell off a house, broke his back and had no family, friends or church to care for him, then he could literally starve to death or die of exposure. Some proposed Social Security disability, the people saw it as reasonable and it was implemented.
Up until the 1930s, if a mother of five becomes a young widow and is in a part of the country with no family, friends or church, her kids become malnourished and homeless. That is how it used to work. The people saw a remedy, tasked the goverment and Social Security survivor benefits came to be.
Yes, there will always be abuses and there will be imperfections but on the whole, many (definitely not all) social programs have been deemed beneficial by a majority of the country and thus they have been retained.
The fact people voted to have others take care of them doesn’t mean it’s constitutional, or right for government to go ahead and do it anyway. If citizens vote for the idiotic on unconstitutional, the reps and senators who have taken an oath the uphold the constitution are supposed to be the check on the idiocy and say no. That was a built-in check to mob rule. There are many times a politician should vote the way of their constituents but there are times when they cannot and say they’ve done the right thing.
We’ve hardly corrected anything if someone such as yourself sits there and asks the question you did, and meant it in all seriousness. If government is now tasked to take care of the individual, why don’t they pay my car payment? Why don’t they pay my electric bill? My mortgage? I have a few trips I’d like to take, can I just send the bill to Uncle Sugar? If they have a moral obligation, and I can make a moral claim to the money they take in from other citizens, why can’t I just have them pay for anything I determine necessary for my health or well-being?
After all, according to you, they are now tasked with taking care of me. If they have to take care of my retirement, I’ll retire right now and forward all my bills to the government.
There’s this thing called the Amendment process. What you’re proposing is democracy and it always devolves into a free for all where the majority takes what it wants (money, rights, land, etc.) from the minority. Hey, it’s what most people want right? That’s why we’re a Republic.
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.
“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.