Posted on 01/19/2005 9:54:17 AM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution limits the Federal Government to twenty Enumerated Powers or “areas.” None of these powers include the Federal Government taking responsibility for the retirement of citizens, getting into the business of retirement, especially by taking money from Americans against their will and forcing them into a government run system that operates like an illegal pyramid scheme.
Some defenders of Social Security contend that the General Welfare Clause in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, “…to promote the general welfare,” is in fact clear evidence of the constitutionality of Social Security. While this view is widespread, to say the least, James Madison in Federalist Papers Forty-One & Forty-Two clearly rebuffed such a contention explaining the General Welfare Clause was just a summary of the twenty Enumerated Powers rather than a blanket power as critics of the Constitution, at the time, had argued.
Its worth noting that defenders of Social Security are basing the constitutionality of the largest program in existence on what Madison called a “misconstruction” used by critics who attacked the Constitution. Madison explained, “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify by an enumeration of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity ... what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions and disregarding the specifications which limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the general welfare?”
So if Social Security is unconstitutional, hence illegal, why shouldn’t the debate over “reform” center on this grave matter? Shouldn’t it be abolished if indeed the Federal Government has no legal authority to operate such a program?
Is the flaw really in the system, or in us, in the way we have used (or abused) the system? We're not likely to learn much from a mistake we won't admit we made in the first place.
The answer is yes.
Imperfect people, us, are unlikely to give rise to a perfect government.
True, but we'll do a lot better if we're not too stubborn to admit when we've screwed up.
>> Is Social Security Constitutional?
Nope.
>> I believe that the Supreme Court declared social security constitutional, after FDR packed the Court.
FDR did not pack the court. He merely threatened to and the "conservative" Supreme Court caved.
In my interpretation of this statement by Jefferson, I don't think he would approve of the US Government taking 7.5% of my salary and 7.5% on top of that from my employer for the past 25 plus years with the promise of income when I retire in return, then dissolving social security with nada to me. If it happened anywhere but within the government, that scenario would be fraud.
To me, a lot of this discussion about reform of social security is just more politicians trying to get their hands on my money. Putting that much cash in front of them is inviting a pork fest and I know I'd get screwed. I don't trust politicians with my money no matter which side of the aisle they sit on, so I would fight every effort to bring it to the table because I DON'T TRUST THEM.
Why would business care about this? Because you never see 7.5% of your salary that goes directly from your employer to social security - in addition to the 7.5% that comes off the top of your check before you get it. The only reason why business would back this is if they save money, which means they can legally give you a pay cut.
Here's a clue:
Businesses push Bush Social Security proposal
By DIANE STAFFORD
The Kansas City Star
As President Bush begins his second term, one of his key economic goals — privatization of some part of Social Security — has earned top attention from big business.
A new business coalition called Compass, which stands for the Coalition for the Modernization and Protection of America's Social Security, has committed more than $5 million to promote the idea.
Backers, who include members of the Business Roundtable, the National Restaurant Association and other influential trade groups, believe that the alternative to private Social Security accounts is a higher payroll tax.
To help deter that outcome, the coalition will pay for direct mail and television advertising to support Bush's proposal.
The National Association of Manufacturers already has created a group, the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security, to lobby against payroll tax increases and for privatization.
Labor groups are lining up on the other side. The AFL-CIO, for example, says that privatization will benefit business — particularly the securities industry — more than individual Social Security investors.
Critics say that fees the industry receives from managing the privatized accounts could produce conflict-of-interest situations and do more to enrich brokerages than individual account holders.
Separately, a Hudson retirement survey, based on a national poll of 2,170 U.S. workers, reported Thursday that 45 percent of the work force didn't think it had enough money set aside for a comfortable retirement.
About three-fourths said they expected to have to work at least part time during their “retirement years.”
One in five of those surveyed said Social Security would provide the biggest chunk of their retirement income.
If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority.
Here's an opinion from Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden that may help illustrate the point about the restrictive nature of Hamilton's words.
Syllabus:
The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, and among the several States. It does not stop at the external boundary of a State.
The power to regulate commerce is general, and has no limitations but such as are prescribed in the Constitution itself.
The power to regulate commerce, so far as it extends, is exclusively vested in Congress, and no part of it can be exercised by a State.
______________________________________
Stop the tape! That sounds very much like what Hamilton wrote. I've seen posters use that quote as evidence that Marshall was in favor of an expansive view of the Comerce Clause. However, look at what Marshall went on to write:
______________________________________
But it does not extend to a commerce which is completely internal.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [end excerpt from Gibbons]
Looking at the last two paragraphs, Gibbons placed clear and specific limits on the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States.
Marshall outlined further limits to this power in 1829 in The Blackbird Creek Marsh Company decision.
It's what liberals like you want. You aren't fooling anyone on this site lefty.
My tactics were to answer all your questions in detail. Your tactics were to act like a coward and keep repeating that I haven't without addressing them directly. You are a coward as well as a liberal.
Your remaining time here will be most uncomfortable, trust me on that.
Please state your position on the Social Security system.
I have said for a long time that Social Security is unconstitutional, on the basis of the Tenth Amendment--that particular power has not been delegated to the federal government in the Constitution--and the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. Forcibly taking money (the fruit of one's labors) from some citizens, against their will, to give it to other citizens--that is a form of involuntary servitude.
Younger voters are barely aware of the subject and are not nearly as likely to have their votes effected by the proposed changes. Elderly voters will turn out in huge numbers if they feel that their security is threatened.
That makes the letter I posted directly to the point. In fact I have added that letter to my profile page for your further edification. If you can deal with those facts "Bring It On". Otherwise get a copy of CIV III and enjoy playing with yourself.
My position is that I've paid into Social Security for more than 25 plus years and I prefer that the government not abscound with my money. They already do plenty of that by subtracting 30% in taxes in addition to Social Security.
If some way were offered to extract my money, my employer's money and interest GUARANTEED, I would not be opposed to some other plan as long as I had control of it and not the government. Provided Congress is watched VERY closely so nothing is tacked on to divert my money or someone else's elsewhere when the plan got made into law.
I simply don't trust politicians with money.
That is my position.
How is it fair to anyone who has paid in for many years to have the government just grab the money and run? No matter how they wrap their little plans up in white linen (and this goes for BOTH parties), that's exactly what I see them trying to do every time they discuss Social Security. So, if you want to reform it, give me my money now so I can do what I want to with it, then reform away. Don't expect me to just write off the cash I've been FORCED to contribute over the years.
I did that.
Address and answer the questions with a direct answer.
I did that.
That does not mean you get to play fantasy politics by answering that social Security is unconstitutional or that it is socialism.
I never addressed the unconstitutionality of it. It surely is socialism. Not to mention, that when you advocate that the government buy stocks, it is the actual precise definition of socialism.
So what you really want is to ask questions, but then say that they cannot be answered with the correct answer, and mark that down as unresponsive. That is truly playing with yourself. How old are you to play these childish games in a fantasy world where you ask all the questions but reject all the answers and keep asking the same dumb question? Are you in high school yet?
Changing Social Security would effect the lives of a great number of people,
NOT Changing Social Security would effect the lives of a great number of people,
f you want to play in a fantasy world then I highly recommend a game called Civilization III
Is that the game you play with your friends after school? Did you do your homework yet?
You are the one playing with yourself.
They really should keep keep children off this adult forum.
And I can't imagine where in the world you got the idea that government has any of your money anymore. They have already spent it.
They absconded with it long ago and spent it. There is no trust fund and there is no obligation for them to give you any back, ever.
I simply don't trust politicians with money. That is my position.
Excellent position. It has always been mine as well.
How is it fair to anyone who has paid in for many years to have the government just grab the money and run?
It's not, but they already have. It's clear that you don't understand the program. It's a Ponzi scheme.
No matter how they wrap their little plans up in white linen (and this goes for BOTH parties), that's exactly what I see them trying to do every time they discuss Social Security.
No, that's what they have already done. There is nothing more to do. They don't have any of your money and they don't owe you any. I can't repeat that often enough.
So, if you want to reform it, give me my money now so I can do what I want to with it, then reform away.
They will never give you the amount of money that has been confiscated from you in one lump sum, ever. So don't bother with the fantasy.
Don't expect me to just write off the cash I've been FORCED to contribute over the years.
I don't. And it wasn't a contribution, it was a tax. They took it from you. (at gunpoint if necessary) And they gave it to someone else to whom it did not rightfully belong.
They have promised to confiscate money from other people and give it to you later, (if you are still alive) but they will not be able to do that for anyone after a few more decades. They promise to do this because they stole your money earlier. The scheme is simplicity itself.
Again, have you read any of the reform plans which have been proposed by various people? Which one if any, asks you to walk away from anything?
Do you propose to keep the system the way it is forever?
This is the part I don't agree with:
'they don't owe you any'
If I pay too much in taxes and I'm due a refund, I expect to get it after I file.
The government may steal it from me, but it doesn't mean they don't owe me.
Yes, I've read the plans and I know what's in them. However, I also watch Congress and the likelihood that any proposed plan would be passed as written for the public is nil. Someone will figure out a way to get cash out of the deal and we get screwed. Again.
Do I like the way the system is? NO!! But neither do I want to screw over half of America.
We've already been screwed once. I'm NOT giving the government the chance to screw me twice.
What they've got on the table right now costs $2 Trillion just to implement. Who pays for that? Not the pols, that's for sure.
Or do we need to start a discussion on how they've padded their own retirement at our expense?
If allowing individuals to take part of their Social Security payments and invest it in the Stock Market is such a terrific idea why hasn't the government already done the same thing?
Let's break it down one part at a time so you can grasp it, I'll go slow for you.
If allowing individuals
It's not "allowing", it's theft, the government takes your money (at gunpoint, if necessary) and says that maybe, someday, it might give some of the money it has stolen from others, to you.
invest it in the Stock Market is such a terrific idea why hasn't the government already done the same thing?
BECAUSE THE CITIZENS WON"T LET THEM, RIGHTFULLY SO. HERE"S WHY:
Investing in stocks is called an equity investment. Equity = ownership. Governments who own businesses are SOCIALISTIC countries. Socialism is a system where government owns the means of production. When individual people own businesses, it's called CAPITALISM. Therefore, the country would have to change to Socialism for the government to do what you propose.
If it is such a great investment and the government had already done so then we should be seeing a strong return on the investment. That would mean an increase in Social Security benefits and a reduction in taxes.
It is a good investment, but not allowable for government to do.
See above comments. Socialism = bad. Capitalism = good.
BTW, ownership of companies has outperformed all other forms of investment over the long term for as long as Capitalism has been allowed to exist.
For that matter if it's such a great idea why don't they make the change now?
BECAUSE WE WON'T ALLOW THEM TO OWN PRIVATE COMPANIES. Damn it gets tiring repeating myself for the benefit of those unable to understand simple concepts.
It's not a good idea to allow government to take over the economy. It is a good idea for individuals to own businesses.
It wouldn't require a big political battle just a change in the way the money is invested.
You are delusional. Or a liberal, but that's redundant.
You don't understand the fundamentals of forms of governance, but most Americans do. You will change this into a socialistic country over my, and many other, dead bodies.
But I suspect the government knows it is too risky of an investment so they leave the money in T Bills.
I suspect that you suspect the government is smart. You suspect wrong.
The reason is twofold. The first reason is that the government cannot really invest in T Bills or bonds. They are debt instruments, and you cannot loan money to yourself. And debt instruments are LOANS, not investments.
They simply pretend there is a "trust fund", and steal the money they pretend is there, and replace it with IOUs to itself. It's a plan that only a child or mentally incompetent person would believe.
THERE IS NO TRUST FUND.
The second reason is, if the government didn't take your money, but instead YOU invested it in ownership of companies and loaned to others in the form of debt instruments, THEY COULDN'T STEAL IT TO USE FOR OTHER PROGRAMS.
So I guess the real question is if the stock market is too risky of an investment for the government why is not too risky for individuals?
It's not too risky, you came to an incorrect conclusion, purposely or out of ignorance, and tried to make a false argument based on it. It's kind of a bait and switch trick. Adults don't fall for such childish tactics.
I believe the answer is that we're being scammed again.
Correct, when you bought into the same lie that has been sold for several generations, you were scammed, again. Social Security is a scam. Anyone who believes in it has been scammed.
Apples and oranges. Social Security taxes are not income taxes. But the money goes the same place.
The government may steal it from me, but it doesn't mean they don't owe me.
The SS law specifically says they don't owe you one red cent. And it's not a refund if they happen to give you a check.
Yes, I've read the plans and I know what's in them.
And none of them propose to do what you say, none.
Do I like the way the system is? NO!! But neither do I want to screw over half of America.
What do you suggest?
read later
Let's just use the word MONEY. The government took my money and I want it back. The government may disagree with my position, but if enough people disagree with the government, then the government is going to have a REALLY hard time continuing their argument without being reversed after the next election. We have the power in this country, not the government, despite what pols might think.
The SS law specifically says they don't owe you one red cent. And it's not a refund if they happen to give you a check.
See above.
And none of them propose to do what you say, none.
My point is that when Congress gets through hacking on it, they will - and it may even be worse. They can't be trusted.
What do you suggest?
A wait and see approach. We've got 40 years to come up with a plan. We don't have to decide now. In a few years, we might be in a better position to tie government hands so they can't screw us over. Someone might have a better idea. The economy might improve enough that we don't have to do anything. Bird flu might kill all us old folk. Who knows. But I have NO desire to rush to some fix that might hurt us all in the long run.
If you think for one second that it's going to stay the same you are in denial. Your plan will lead to higher taxes, smaller payouts, later ages to start collecting, means testing, inflating the currency and freezing the payouts to repudiate the debt and similar ways to rob you. If you don't think it's going to happen, you are delusional.
The only question is how it will be changed, not if it will be. THEY CAN'T PAY! Get it?
My children and grandchildren are being robbed and just because you don't understand the things that might be done and think that an idea after you are dead might be a better idea is preposterous. You have your head in the sand and just want to pass the buck on to someone else and hope you can get all the money you have had confiscated from you back by having it stolen from someone else.
Good luck. You play right into the liberals hands. Not me.
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.