NationStates Jolt Archive

Nancy Peloci recently revealed the Democrats plan to addess the Social Security issue... in that the Democrats would do everythign in their power to STOP the President and his plan, essentailly because his plan is incomplete and they are unpleased with what they see thus far. However, one must ask the question.. is the President a legislator ? is it his job to bring forth full and complete laws ready for passage.. or is that not what the senate and congress are meant for... to address the hard issues and negotiate compromises....

Is the democrats sole strategy to reject the Presidents plan rather then offer aliternatives or offer modications an acceptable one ? Is it not suggesting the Democrats are in capable of addressing the problem social security presents us with ?

Nancy Peloci recently revealed the Democrats plan to addess the Social Security issue... in that the Democrats would do everythign in their power to STOP the President and his plan, essentailly because his plan is incomplete and they are unpleased with what they see thus far. However, one must ask the question.. is the President a legislator ? is it his job to bring forth full and complete laws ready for passage.. or is that not what the senate and congress are meant for... to address the hard issues and negotiate compromises....

Is the democrats sole strategy to reject the Presidents plan rather then offer aliternatives or offer modications an acceptable one ? Is it not suggesting the Democrats are in capable of addressing the problem social security presents us with ?
What's wrong with social security as it is, as long as you remove the caps on taxes...

Becuase there is nothing to suggest that the mere removal of caps on income will enough to makeup for the systemic problem social security has.

and the fact of the matter is Democrats arn't even suggesting this small alteration.. their only strategy is to stop the current Bush plan without making any suggestions of their own.

Nancy Peloci recently revealed the Democrats plan to addess the Social Security issue... in that the Democrats would do everythign in their power to STOP the President and his plan, essentailly because his plan is incomplete and they are unpleased with what they see thus far. However, one must ask the question.. is the President a legislator ? is it his job to bring forth full and complete laws ready for passage.. or is that not what the senate and congress are meant for... to address the hard issues and negotiate compromises....

Is the democrats sole strategy to reject the Presidents plan rather then offer aliternatives or offer modications an acceptable one ? Is it not suggesting the Democrats are in capable of addressing the problem social security presents us with ?

He didn't orignially have the power to suggest legislation, but the ofice acquired that some time ago. FDR used it quite a bit.

Also, it does seem a bit fishy that the Democrats haven't suggested a plan of their own. Like it or not, we'll have some problems 40 years or so down the line, and it's better to fix it now rather than later.

what's wrong with social security?

a)it's a tax

b)it's a tax

c)it's a tax

d)...

if you think you're too stupid or helpless to plan for your own retirement, be my guest and stay on the SS bandwagon.

Otherwise... let's pay people what they're owed and scrap it.

what's wrong with social security?

a)it's a tax

b)it's a tax

c)it's a tax

d)...

if you think you're too stupid or helpless to plan for your own retirement, be my guest and stay on the SS bandwagon.

Otherwise... let's pay people what they're owed and scrap it.

d) We're the Federal Government. We're here to help.

I used to be in favor of the privatization plan. Then I realized it would just be another government mess. Abolition is the only real solution. However, the idea of an ownership society is just too painful for a lot of people to bear. Thus, we'll suffer on with our 'raise taxes' and 'cut benefits' approach to providing senior citizen welfare.

d) We're the Federal Government. We're here to help.

I used to be in favor of the privatization plan. Then I realized it would just be another government mess. Abolition is the only real solution. However, the idea of an ownership society is just too painful for a lot of people to bear. Thus, we'll suffer on with our 'raise taxes' and 'cut benefits' approach to providing senior citizen welfare.

You're right, but people aren't ready to accept the abolition of Social Security yet, so private accounts will have to do. It's a step in the right direction.

d) We're the Federal Government. We're here to help.
Hard to believe people are still falling for that one. :p

The government should not run a program. Which takes your hard earned money. Without your consent. Puts it in a plan that only pays 2% yield. Then says after you have been paying half your life. Oh there may be a cut/termination of your benefits. This is nothing but robery. Let me make 8% on all that cash I paid into it. That way I could retire on this money. Democrats have it all wrong. They need to do a serious house cleaning in Democratic party if they ever want to win another major election.

Also, it does seem a bit fishy that the Democrats haven't suggested a plan of their own. Like it or not, we'll have some problems 40 years or so down the line, and it's better to fix it now rather than later.the Republicans haven't suggested any 40 year solutions either. They're still caught up on the plan to contract (or "privatize") Social Security

the Republicans haven't suggested any 40 year solutions either. They're still caught up on the plan to contract (or "privatize") Social Security

That would fix it. I would still be able to get full benefits when I hit 65. As it is, that is in serious jeopardy.

.

Stope: To bend over in search of the lint between your toes.

Always check the dictionary my friend, its all in the dictionary.

The government should not run a program. Which takes your hard earned money. Without your consent. Puts it in a plan that only pays 2% yield. Then says after you have been paying half your life. Oh there may be a cut/termination of your benefits. This is nothing but robery. Let me make 8% on all that cash I paid into it. That way I could retire on this money. Democrats have it all wrong. They need to do a serious house cleaning in Democratic party if they ever want to win another major election.

Actually, such things are UnConstitutional...

Can anyone tell me how it is we have so many Laws now that are UnConstitutional yet are never challenged in the Courts?!?!

There is a REASON such things are not allowed, now anyway, can anyone tell me?

Regards,
Gaar

The government should not run a program. Which takes your hard earned money. Without your consent. Puts it in a plan that only pays 2% yield. Then says after you have been paying half your life. Oh there may be a cut/termination of your benefits. This is nothing but robery. Let me make 8% on all that cash I paid into it. That way I could retire on this money. Democrats have it all wrong. They need to do a serious house cleaning in Democratic party if they ever want to win another major election.

Its even worse because you dont even get that 2%. Do you know why? because the politicos use the SS surplus to spend thereby not having to raise taxes. Its essentially free money for them to spend because no one feels the bite now.

If it wasnt for Social security all these years, congress would either have to had controlled spending or try to get re elected on more tax increases.

So look at it this way, you are getting a 2% return(far less than any market including t bills) but you are essentially paying yourself this 2% in real terms.

Good job morons. Only Govt could devise a system where a lender pays the borrower to take their money. Gotta love politicians. And stupid Democratic workers(though Republicans are as bad with raiding SS) who think that there is some sort of "FREE LUNCH"

Economics and civics should be mandatory classes in all high schools.

edit:

They put Ponzi in jail for this at the turn f the 20th century.

Actually, such things are UnConstitutional...

Can anyone tell me how it is we have so many Laws now that are UnConstitutional yet are never challenged in the Courts?!?!

There is a REASON such things are not allowed, now anyway, can anyone tell me?

Regards,
Gaar
Show me where it is unconstitutional?

Actually, such things are UnConstitutional...

Can anyone tell me how it is we have so many Laws now that are UnConstitutional yet are never challenged in the Courts?!?!

There is a REASON such things are not allowed, now anyway, can anyone tell me?

Regards,
Gaar

It's called the elastic clause. The Supreme Court wouldn't kill any of them for that reason. And we keep voting the guys in who pass the things, so Congress isn't going to get rid of it either.

Actually, such things are UnConstitutional...

Can anyone tell me how it is we have so many Laws now that are UnConstitutional yet are never challenged in the Courts?!?!

There is a REASON such things are not allowed, now anyway, can anyone tell me?

Regards,
Gaar


Yes, but I forgot the exact term..court packing? ugg I forget.. one of FDR, legacies though. Started with rampant abuse of the commerce clause. No, I am mistaken, it started with income tax which was not properly ratified. Later it was the commerce clause and Demogauges(sp) like FDR.

Show me where it is unconstitutional?

http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_5/ts215a.html

An Executive Order that is printed in the Federal Register and draws no objection from Congress thirty-days from execution becomes codified law. It is as valid as a statute, as if passed by Congress and signed by the President into legislative authority and is enforceable as executive law in the Code of Federal Regulations [CFRs].

The power and influence of executive orders over the domestic affairs of the people of the nation are often extended by statutes authorized by Congress or modified by federal court decisions. The actual statutes are written by attorneys employed by the executive agencies (IRS, EPA, FDA, etc.) empowered to enforce them, so the statutes typically maximize the power of the executive and his agents within the interpreted limits of a congressional act. The Taft-Hartley Act, Civil Rights Act and hundreds of others are examples of this. The President, acting through the Attorney General, is empowered to initiate lawsuits in federal courts against those who may violate these statutes and their supporting federal court decisions.

Executive Order No. 12919, of June 3, 1994, sustained a number of previous executive orders that already had effectively suspended the Constitution. It was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 1994 and became law on the day following our national day of independence, July 5, 1994. While we might regard this date as our date of dependence, it is not the only event of its type, merely one of the most recent. Commander-in-Chief Lincoln issued Executive Order No. 1, on October 20, 1862, establishing a provisional court within the federal military district created by the armed occupation of Louisiana.

Executive Order 12919 extends a national emergency that follows a long series of precedents endorsed by Congress in 1861, 1917, 1933, 1947, 1974 and up to and including 1994, the more recent of these occurring during peacetime!

On April 6, 1917, the United States Congress declared war on Germany. On October 6, 1917, while in a state of emergency, Congress passed the Trading With The Enemy Act. Early in 1933, Roosevelt unlawfully resurrected this old wartime Act to suspend the Constitution and to deprive the American people of their lawfully guaranteed Rights to Life, Liberty and Property (Pursuit of Happiness).

In July 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt created an Executive Council of appointed executive advisors to assist in the management of the affairs of the national government and to advise those who require guidance of the president's office. Some advisors now include the CIA, Council of Economic Advisors, Office of Management and Budget, a National Security Council, the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), and scores of others.

President Roosevelt exceeded his Constitutional powers and violated his oath of office when he issued Proclamation 2039 on March 6, 1933, which placed the lawful money (gold) of the people under the control of the Commander-in-Chief as property of the federal government. Congress had not yet assembled to give consent to any lawful emergency powers act, or to permit suspension of the Constitutional Rights of any American Citizens.

Did the 73rd Congress, on March 9, 1933, as a committee of the whole, commit a misprision of treason, jointly and severally, when they did not IMPEACH President Roosevelt for his singular act of suspending the Constitution? Did Congress thus become a principal in constructive treason, when they passed an ex post facto bill, exonerating FDR's lawless act of treason?

The 73rd Congress had a precedent: on July 4, 1861 the 37th Congress convened 17 weeks after Lincoln's inauguration, after he had declared war, suspended Habeas corpus, etc., and "rubber- stamped" the Commander-in-Chief's "solo" actions. The exact language Congress used July 4, 1861 was used again, by Congress, on March 9, 1933, in 12 USC 95(b).

The 73rd Congress not only allowed President Roosevelt to seize THE PEOPLE's property, it effectively declared war upon WE, THE PEOPLE. In 1933, by removing the "exclusion of domestic transactions by American citizens" clause from the old 1917 Act, Congress forced American citizens into a new "legal status."

Doesn't every domestic transaction, among what had been a Free people, now require a license, permit or authorization that issues at the order of the federal government?

If this be untrue, why are all banks licensed, all bank depositors numbered, all transactions subject to be reported, without a warrant, to the banking regulators and the IRS?

In the words of James Madison:

"I believe there are more instances of abridgment of the freedom of people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations..."

Have these presidents, and Congresses, violated their oaths of office? Have they usurped the Constitution for the United States of America? After all, Article I, Section 9, Clauses 2 and 3 of the Constitution guarantee:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it;"; .... (and) .... "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

When Bill Clinton signed, without public announcement, his Executive Order, No. 12129, issued June 3, 1994, titled "National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness," he became the tenth chief executive since Roosevelt to knowingly forsake his country for the privileges of power. Under unlawful usurpations of power, and the silent conspiracy of every Congress since March 9, 1933 to maintain that power, the misuse of emergency presidential powers continues to control the Nation.

You've managed to say nothing about social security. Gee thanks for that cut and paste though. It's a load of bull, by the way.

You've managed to say nothing about social security. Gee thanks for that cut and paste though. It's a load of bull, by the way.

How is pointing out that the very Agency that runs Social Security was set up under an UnConstitutional Act not qualify as saying anything about Social Security?

And perhaps YOU might address just ONE POINT from that "Load" instead of just an ad hominum attack?

Otherwise, I believe it is YOU that has SHOWN just who is full of what...

Regards,
Gaar

How is pointing out that the very Agency that runs Social Security was set up under an UnConstitutional Act not qualify as saying anything about Social Security?

And perhaps YOU might address just ONE POINT from that "Load" instead of just an ad hominum attack?

Otherwise, I believe it is YOU that has SHOWN just who is full of what...

Regards,
Gaar

Technically speaking, everything that you mentioned could be covered under the elastic clause, because everything was passed by Congress, at least in its original form.

Becuase there is nothing to suggest that the mere removal of caps on income will enough to makeup for the systemic problem social security has.

and the fact of the matter is Democrats arn't even suggesting this small alteration.. their only strategy is to stop the current Bush plan without making any suggestions of their own.

Actually, yes there is. A removal of the 90k tax cap solidfies Social Security for 75 years, according to the Social Security Administration itself. It extends it even further, perhaps for a century, but the SSA only does projections 75 years out.

http://www.ssab.gov/financing/2004_update.pdf

Technically speaking, everything that you mentioned could be covered under the elastic clause, because everything was passed by Congress, at least in its original form.

Sorry, I disagree...

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

No where there does it say they can "subvert" the Rights in the Constitution, and actually says it is to be Laws which enforce the Powers granted, not makes up new ones and gets rid of others already there, does it?

You cannot "subvert" the Constitution with this clause and therefore any Law made up that subverts ANY Rights granted in the Constitution cannot actually be Laws, can they?

They merely have the "color" of Law, but when challenged, they should have no choice but to FOLLOW the Constitution in such matters, shouldn't they?

Regards,
Gaar

How is pointing out that the very Agency that runs Social Security was set up under an UnConstitutional Act not qualify as saying anything about Social Security?

And perhaps YOU might address just ONE POINT from that "Load" instead of just an ad hominum attack?

Otherwise, I believe it is YOU that has SHOWN just who is full of what...

Regards,
Gaar
The money? No where in the constitution does it say that their has to be a gold standard. And I really don't see where it says that FDR suspended the constitution, it just says that he did...quite a bit.

Sorry, I disagree...

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

No where there does it say they can "subvert" the Rights in the Constitution, and actually says it is to be Laws which enforce the Powers granted, not makes up new ones and gets rid of others already there, does it?

You cannot "subvert" the Constitution with this clause and therefore any Law made up that subverts ANY Rights granted in the Constitution cannot actually be Laws, can they?

They merely have the "color" of Law, but when challenged, they should have no choice but to FOLLOW the Constitution in such matters, shouldn't they?

Regards,
Gaar
What right are they subverting?

the Republicans haven't suggested any 40 year solutions either. They're still caught up on the plan to contract (or "privatize") Social Security

Chile has a privatized SS program and it is working quite well. I think Houston< TX has one also. Why not offer people a choice? Stay in the present system, or enter into a privatized system.

What right are they subverting?

Many...

Shall we make a list?

Shall we start with "pursuit of Happiness"?

Regards,
Gaar

Many...

Shall we make a list?

Shall we start with "pursuit of Happiness"?

Regards,
Gaar
With what act?

That would fix it. I would still be able to get full benefits when I hit 65. As it is, that is in serious jeopardy.

I'll be 62 in May and can not get full benefits until I'm 66. If you are younger than I you will have to be older than 66. The SS web site gives you the age for full benefits which depends on your birth year.

Chile has a privatized SS program and it is working quite well. I think Houston< TX has one also. Why not offer people a choice? Stay in the present system, or enter into a privatized system.

That's what the plan is. You get a choice.

I'll be 62 in May and can not get full benefits until I'm 66. If you are younger than I you will have to be older than 66. The SS web site gives you the age for full benefits which depends on your birth year.

I'm 21, so I'm looking at getting it about the time it runs out of money, depending on whose figures you use.

Economics and civics should be mandatory classes in all high schools.

AMEN!

Many...

Shall we make a list?

Shall we start with "pursuit of Happiness"?

Regards,
Gaar

Beg pardon, but that's in the Declaration of Independance, which is not a legally binding document.

Otherwise, what we've been talking about is adding new powers, which we've done since the beginning of the country. Washington added the power of Commander-in-Chief to the Presidency, which is not in the Constitution. Everything is legal because they have not directly violated anything in the Constitution.

The money? No where in the constitution does it say that their has to be a gold standard. And I really don't see where it says that FDR suspended the constitution, it just says that he did...quite a bit.

I never said it did...

But there are Constitutional ways that they are directed to use to issue money and who can do it, are there not?

We are also not supposed to have "Taxation without representation", which is what an Income Tax or ANY taxes on wages is...

Something about the Government not having a Right to TAKE MONEY from ME to GIVE IT to YOU that you don't understand?

They have HAD to suspend Our Constitution in order to MAKE US a Socialistic State.

Regards,
Gaar

Beg pardon, but that's in the Declaration of Independance, which is not a legally binding document.

Otherwise, what we've been talking about is adding new powers, which we've done since the beginning of the country. Washington added the power of Commander-in-Chief to the Presidency, which is not in the Constitution. Everything is legal because they have not directly violated anything in the Constitution.

You think because our Forefathers didn't "enumerate" all of the possible "pusuits of happiness" that they gave the Government some Right in the Future to subvert them?

They may ADD to any Laws in order to HELP ENFORCE the Constitutional Rights NOT subvert them, something YOU don't get about that?

That people have been BRAINWASHED to just accept that the Government CAN do such things is becoming VERY disturbing.

Regards,
Gaar

I never said it did...

But there are Constitutional ways that they are directed to use to issue money and who can do it, are there not?

We are also not supposed to have "Taxation without representation", which is what an Income Tax or ANY taxes on wages is...

Something about the Government not having a Right to TAKE MONEY from ME to GIVE IT to YOU that you don't understand?

They have HAD to suspend Our Constitution in order to MAKE US a Socialistic State.

Regards,
Gaar

24th amendment. (ha...I really should stop posting at such a late hour. 16th)

Oh, and are you seriously suggesting you don't have representation in congress?

How is pointing out that the very Agency that runs Social Security was set up under an UnConstitutional Act not qualify as saying anything about Social Security?

The only one that can determine if it is unconstitutional is the Supreme Court. You may say, "IMHO it is unconstitutional," but you cannot say, "it is unconstitutional" as the Supreme Court has not made a decision on that.

I never said it did...

But there are Constitutional ways that they are directed to use to issue money and who can do it, are there not?

We are also not supposed to have "Taxation without representation", which is what an Income Tax or ANY taxes on wages is...

Something about the Government not having a Right to TAKE MONEY from ME to GIVE IT to YOU that you don't understand?

They have HAD to suspend Our Constitution in order to MAKE US a Socialistic State.

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry, the 16th Amendment was legally ratified.

24th amendment.

Oh, and are you seriously suggesting you don't have representation in congress?

No, I AM suggesting that not EVERYONE does... Since Voters Registration isn't just "given" when you pay taxes...

And even if it were, how do you then justify taxing different people at different rates?

Are some people "more equal" than others, simply because of the wages they earn?

Regards,
Gaar

The only one that can determine if it is unconstitutional is the Supreme Court. You may say, "IMHO it is unconstitutional," but you cannot say, "it is unconstitutional" as the Supreme Court has not made a decision on that.

It seems they actually DID say it was at one time...

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/16thHistory.htm

The Founding Fathers had rejected income taxes (or any other direct taxes) unless they were apportioned to each state according to population. Nevertheless, an income tax was levied during the Civil War and upheld by the Supreme Court on somewhat tenuous reasoning. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In connection with the two Pollock cases reviewed in 1895, the Court declared that the act violated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.

No, I AM suggesting that not EVERYONE does... Since Voters Registration isn't just "given" when you pay taxes...

And even if it were, how do you then justify taxing different people at different rates?

Are some people "more equal" than others, simply because of the wages they earn?

Regards,
Gaar
Irrelevent. The taxation system as established by congress is legal under the 24th amendment. If it is fair is another debate that I don't wish to get into.

Who doesn't have the right to vote that pays taxes? (Besides immigrants, who have the ability to become a citizen, and those who generally aren't accepted to be ready to be able to vote, ie 16 year olds)

That would fix it. I would still be able to get full benefits when I hit 65. As it is, that is in serious jeopardy.

Um, no.

Every problem that Bush says Social Security is in for in 20-40 years, his plan will cause immediatly. His plan will cost trillions and will pump huge amounts of money into the stockmarket in a single shot, artificially inflating chosen stocks, causing financial chaos with consequences far more far reaching that just social security. It will also screw things up for the majority of private investors.

To do absolutly nothing with social security is far, far better than anything that Bush has proposed. To lift the cap will see it sound for the forseeable future.

It seems they actually DID say it was at one time...

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/16thHistory.htm

The Founding Fathers had rejected income taxes (or any other direct taxes) unless they were apportioned to each state according to population. Nevertheless, an income tax was levied during the Civil War and upheld by the Supreme Court on somewhat tenuous reasoning. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In connection with the two Pollock cases reviewed in 1895, the Court declared that the act violated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.

So they passed the Constitutional Amendment, which makes it legal. What's the big deal?

There's another entirely different plan that would solve all the SSI problems forever. That's the abolition of the IRS, income tax, and payroll taxes. Replace the government-instituted larceny with the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org). A national retail sales tax would create so many more jobs and cause our economy to grow like never before. Worrying about how to fund SSI into the next century would be unecessary.

Um, no.

Every problem that Bush says Social Security is in for in 20-40 years, his plan will cause immediatly. His plan will cost trillions and will pump huge amounts of money into the stockmarket in a single shot, artificially inflating chosen stocks, causing financial chaos with consequences far more far reaching that just social security. It will also screw things up for the majority of private investors.

To do absolutly nothing with social security is far, far better than anything that Bush has proposed. To lift the cap will see it sound for the forseeable future.

You got numbers for that? Given that Greenspan has given his cautious assent to Bush's plan, I'm not too worried about it.

So they passed the Constitutional Amendment, which makes it legal. What's the big deal?

It Subverts the "Original" Constitutional Rights.

You can't do that.

Regards,
Gaar

Im surprised no one has brought up the most obvious problem with Bush's social security plan. Perhaps because not many people know modern history.

The social security system arose in the 1930s as part of the response to the Great Depression. For those of you who do not know, the Great Depression was caused by the collapse of the stock market on what has since been known as Black Thursday (October 24, 1929). The stock market collapse heralded a collapse of the US economy as a whole, and many people found themselves unemployed and without money. Businesses went bankrupt, banks went bankrupt, and people were left with nothing. Social security was part of the reforms put in place to prevent this type of catastrophe in the future.

So, what does Bush propose? He proposes that we invest the social security money into the stock market! The very stock market that caused the Great Depression in the first place! The very stock market whose collapse brought about the reforms that put social security into place. The whole idea of social security was to protect us from things like stock market collapses, and here comes Bush and proposes that we do that by putting the money into the stock market! Anyone else seeing the logic in this? It seems like Bush mustve been too busy getting drunk when they taught the Great Depression in history class. Not only did he not learn the lessons of the stock market collapse, but he has proposed a system that relies on the very thing that caused the great calamity that forced the US to put in safeguards in the first place. Thats like having your car stolen, and deciding that in order to prevent yourself from having to walk everywhere if it should ever be stolen again, you are going to make sure you always have enough money to buy another car, and you are going to store all of that money in the trunk of your car just in case it gets stolen again.

This plan is not just poorly thought out, its also plain stupid.

It Subverts the "Original" Constitutional Rights.

You can't do that.

Regards,
Gaar

So slavery should still be legal? That was in the "Original" Constitution. So are a few other things that you wouldn't like repealed.

Im surprised no one has brought up the most obvious problem with Bush's social security plan. Perhaps because not many people know modern history.

The social security system arose in the 1930s as part of the response to the Great Depression. For those of you who do not know, the Great Depression was caused by the collapse of the stock market on what has since been known as Black Thursday (October 24, 1929). The stock market collapse heralded a collapse of the US economy as a whole, and many people found themselves unemployed and without money. Businesses went bankrupt, banks went bankrupt, and people were left with nothing. Social security was part of the reforms put in place to prevent this type of catastrophe in the future.

So, what does Bush propose? He proposes that we invest the social security money into the stock market! The very stock market that caused the Great Depression in the first place! The very stock market whose collapse brought about the reforms that put social security into place. The whole idea of social security was to protect us from things like stock market collapses, and here comes Bush and proposes that we do that by putting the money into the stock market! Anyone else seeing the logic in this? It seems like Bush mustve been too busy getting drunk when they taught the Great Depression in history class. Not only did he not learn the lessons of the stock market collapse, but he has proposed a system that relies on the very thing that caused the great calamity that forced the US to put in safeguards in the first place. Thats like having your car stolen, and deciding that in order to prevent yourself from having to walk everywhere if it should ever be stolen again, you are going to make sure that this time you keep all of your keys inside the car at all times.

This plan is not just poorly thought it, its also plain stupid.

The Stock Market crash didn't cause the Great Depression. Factory output was already slowing down in the summer of '29. It was just another corrective swing in the market, which was exacerbated by the situation with the German reparations, the loans we gave them to rebuild, the money owed us by the European powers from WW1, and the protectionist policies that most of the world used to try to fix it.

The stock market was due for a crash, but it didn't cause the depression. It was merely an indicator of what was coming.

It Subverts the "Original" Constitutional Rights.

You can't do that.

Regards,
Gaar
Wanna bet.

Regards,
CSW.

So slavery should still be legal? That was in the "Original" Constitution. So are a few other things that you wouldn't like repealed.

Sorry, slavery IS NOT an Original Right...

They just set-up ways of counting "indentured servants" is all.

Regards,
Gaar

The Stock Market crash didn't cause the Great Depression. Factory output was already slowing down in the summer of '29. It was just another corrective swing in the market, which was exacerbated by the situation with the German reparations, the loans we gave them to rebuild, the money owed us by the European powers from WW1, and the protectionist policies that most of the world used to try to fix it.

The stock market was due for a crash, but it didn't cause the depression. It was merely an indicator of what was coming.

Unfortunately your opinion disagrees with that of the vast majority of historians. In fact the social security administration its self lists Black Thursday as the catalyst for the Great Depression (go to their website and read the history section). Its called Black Thursday for a reason

Im surprised no one has brought up the most obvious problem with Bush's social security plan. Perhaps because not many people know modern history.
...
This plan is not just poorly thought it, its also plain stupid.
I don't like the idea of more federal involvement in the markets, but your demagoguery is just unbearable. Bush, Greenspan, and others are only advocating playing the market with something like 5% of the money that is withheld. Let's see, twelve percent of 90,000 is $10,800. Five percent of that is $540. Five Hundred and Forty dollars is what we would be able to invest. That's a pretty cautious approach. Good enough to build some wealth, not enough to cripple if it's all lost.

Actually, such things are UnConstitutional...

Can anyone tell me how it is we have so many Laws now that are UnConstitutional yet are never challenged in the Courts?!?!

There is a REASON such things are not allowed, now anyway, can anyone tell me?

Regards,
Gaar


Been telling you guys forever that the man is keeping you down.

Sorry, slavery IS NOT an Original Right...

They just set-up ways of counting "indentured servants" is all.

Regards,
Gaar

Okay, but what about the Bill of Rights? That added new rights that weren't in the "original" constitution. The point is that if you invalidate one amendment, you invalidate them all. Why bother with the amendment process then? Why not just pass laws regularly?

Sorry, slavery IS NOT an Original Right...

They just set-up ways of counting "indentured servants" is all.

Regards,
Gaar
Sorry, but slavery was pretty clearly enshrined in the Constitution, and most likely would still be around today if it wasn't for people 'meddling' with it.


Or, shall we look at something that wouldn't be there. How about women voting? Have a problem with that?

It Subverts the "Original" Constitutional Rights.

You can't do that.

Regards,
Gaar

The 72nd Amendment will have all the validity of the first ten.

Bad Amendments, such as Prohibition, will ultimately fail.

It Subverts the "Original" Constitutional Rights.

You can't do that.

Regards,
Gaar

AMENDMENTS ARE ILLEGAL RARRRR

Okay, but what about the Bill of Rights? That added new rights that weren't in the "original" constitution. The point is that if you invalidate one amendment, you invalidate them all. Why bother with the amendment process then? Why not just pass laws regularly?

Something you guys didn't get about their being able to make additional Laws to HELP ENFORCE the Rights given, as long as they don't infringe on others Constitutional Rights?

What Constitutional Right are being infringed when a man is freed? Some may suggest that the "owners Rights" have been, but I would suggest that no man has any Right to own another, and THAT Right is found in the "All men are created equal"...

Now make that same argument with each of the Amendments...

If ALL Amendments are Legal, then HOW can they be challenged Legally?

Gotta Love "Checks and Balances"... :D

Regards,
Gaar

The only one that can determine if it is unconstitutional is the Supreme Court. You may say, "IMHO it is unconstitutional," but you cannot say, "it is unconstitutional" as the Supreme Court has not made a decision on that.

Technically, not even the Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional. However, they do and people accept their decisions witout complaint so thhey continue to get away with it.

Nancy Peloci recently revealed the Democrats plan to addess the Social Security issue... in that the Democrats would do everythign in their power to STOP the President and his plan, essentailly because his plan is incomplete and they are unpleased with what they see thus far. However, one must ask the question.. is the President a legislator ? is it his job to bring forth full and complete laws ready for passage.. or is that not what the senate and congress are meant for... to address the hard issues and negotiate compromises....

Is the democrats sole strategy to reject the Presidents plan rather then offer aliternatives or offer modications an acceptable one ? Is it not suggesting the Democrats are in capable of addressing the problem social security presents us with ?
Bah! They ARE the problem. The government has taken the money and put IOU's in the cash drawer. What has them by the short & curlys is that come 2018 SS will start calling in the markers. Their panties are in a twist because their Ponzi scheme is falling apart. Not only will they stop having SS revenues as a source of income to piss away, but they will actually have to pay back the loans they have taken.

The real solution is to incorporate the private accounts and raise the cap. Then make it illegal for the government to borrow those funds in the future. Politicians have no discipline when it comes to money.

They have the balls to moan about baseball players juicing their way into the record books while they juice their way through record deficits with our money.

That's what the plan is. You get a choice.
Not quite what is being proposed at all. A portion, of the individuals 1/2 of the payment, may be allowed to be invested. There is no allowance for divorcing oneself from SS.

I'm 21, so I'm looking at getting it about the time it runs out of money, depending on whose figures you use.
A point of order. SS is not running out of money. It holds promissory notes, backed by the full faith and credit of the US, that more than meet the needs. The government just doesn't want to honor it's debt.

You think because our Forefathers didn't "enumerate" all of the possible "pusuits of happiness" that they gave the Government some Right in the Future to subvert them?

They may ADD to any Laws in order to HELP ENFORCE the Constitutional Rights NOT subvert them, something YOU don't get about that?

That people have been BRAINWASHED to just accept that the Government CAN do such things is becoming VERY disturbing.

Regards,
Gaar
The "pursuit of happiness". Let's look at that. Pursuit is, "an activity that one engages in as a vocation, profession, or avocation." Happiness? "a state of well-being and contentment." Does a pedophile or rapist or robber or drug dealer have an absolute right to pursue those activities tha they dervive a state of well being and contentment from?

So the pursuit is, of necessity, limited. It is also merely a pursuit, not a guarantee. Happiness? Now we have entered into the realm of philosophy, poetry, reverie but hardly something that can, or should, be codified.

So since it is not codified, guaranteed or the responsibility of the government - what is your point. Life is a bitch. Occasionally we smile, laugh, feel satisfied. But it passes and we are not always "happy." Get used to it.

It seems they actually DID say it was at one time...

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/16thHistory.htm

The Founding Fathers had rejected income taxes (or any other direct taxes) unless they were apportioned to each state according to population. Nevertheless, an income tax was levied during the Civil War and upheld by the Supreme Court on somewhat tenuous reasoning. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In connection with the two Pollock cases reviewed in 1895, the Court declared that the act violated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.
Please cite the case if you are going to refer to it. I dare say that should there be such a case it either had nothing to do with income tax per se or it had nothing to do with Art. 1 Sec. 9 (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html).

You got numbers for that? Given that Greenspan has given his cautious assent to Bush's plan, I'm not too worried about it.
Is that the same National Commission on Social Security Reform's Alan Greenspan at Reagan's elbow when they "saved" SS back on April 20, 1983 when Reagan said, "This bill demonstrates for all time our nation's ironclad commitment to social security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have one pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire.

And this bill assures us of one more thing that is equally important. It's a clear and dramatic demonstration that our system can still work when men and women of good will join together to make it work.

Just a few months ago, there was legitimate alarm that social security would soon run out of money. On both sides of the political aisle, there were dark suspicions that opponents from the other party were more interested in playing politics than in solving the problem. But in the eleventh hour, a distinguished bipartisan commission appointed by House Speaker O'Neill, by Senate Majority Leader Baker, and by me began, to find a solution that could be enacted into law.

Political leaders of both parties set aside their passions and joined in that search. The result of these labors in the Commission and the Congress are now before us, ready to be signed into law, a monument to the spirit of compassion and commitment that unites us as a people.

Today, all of us can look each other square in the eye and say, "We kept our promises." We promised that we would protect the financial integrity of social security. We have. We promised that we would protect beneficiaries against any loss in current benefits. We have. And we promised to attend to the needs of those still working, not only those Americans nearing retirement but young people just entering the labor force. And we've done that, too.

None of us here today would pretend that this bill is perfect. Each of us had to compromise one way or another. But the essence of bipartisanship is to give up a little in order to get a lot. And, my fellow Americans, I think we've gotten a very great deal.

A tumultuous debate about social security has raged for more than two decades in this country; but there has been one point that has won universal agreement: The social security system must be preserved. And rescuing the system has meant reexamining its original intent, purposes, and practical limits.

The amendments embodied in this legislation recognize that social security cannot do as much for us as we might have hoped when the trust funds were overflowing. Time and again, benefits were increased far beyond the taxes and wages that were supposed to support them. In this compromise we have struck the best possible balance between the taxes we pay and the benefits paid back. Any more in taxes would be an unfair burden on working Americans and could seriously weaken our economy. Any less would threaten the commitment already made to this generation of retirees and to their children.

We're entering an age when average Americans will live longer and live more productive lives. And these amendments adjust to that progress. The changes in this legislation will allow social security to age as gracefully as all of us hope to do ourselves, without becoming an overwhelming burden on generations still to come.

So, today we see an issue that once divided and frightened so many people now uniting us. Our elderly need no longer fear that the checks they depend on will be stopped or reduced. These amendments protect them. Americans of middle age need no longer worry whether their career-long investment will pay off. These amendments guarantee it. And younger people can feel confident that social security will still be around when they need it to cushion their retirement.

These amendments reaffirm the commitment of our government to the performance and stability of social security. It was nearly 50 years ago when, under the leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American people reached a great turning point, setting up the social security system. F.D.R. spoke then of an era of startling industrial changes that tended more and more to make life insecure. It was his belief that the system can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts. Today we reaffirm Franklin Roosevelt's commitment that social security must always provide a secure and stable base so that older Americans may live in dignity."?

If so, then you have good reason to feel less comforted and secure.

Hard to believe people are still falling for that one. :p
Damn straight. Funny, when Bush intervenes, people scream out that he's not allowed to do it. When he doesn't, they say its his "job to help."

Please cite the case if you are going to refer to it. I dare say that should there be such a case it either had nothing to do with income tax per se or it had nothing to do with Art. 1 Sec. 9 (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html).

Something about Pollock, 1895, Supreme Court YOU didn't understand?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-48,RNWE:en&q=Pollock+1895+Supreme+Court

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1876-1900/reform/pollock.htm

http://www.mury.k12.ut.us/mhs/apus/handouts/supremecourtcases.htm

Pollock v. The Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. (1895). Declared the income tax under the Wilson-Gorman Tariff to be unconstitutional

http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/supremes.html

Also in 1895,... And it struck down a progressive federal tax on high incomes (in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.), arguing that taxing higher incomes at a higher rate was an unconstitutional attack on property. Such decisions were characteristic of 'legal formalism,' a term describing the Court's emphasis on protecting individual rights to make contracts and hold property--above all else.

I'm 21, so I'm looking at getting it about the time it runs out of money, depending on whose figures you use.


Ehhhh. It doesn't EVER run out of money. We pay into the fund EVERY year.

In 2058, it can no longer afford to pay out benefits at the current rate...because the surplus will be gone.

So, when you retire, you can expect to receive 70% of the promised benefits. Not perfect, but not quite "out of money" either.

Please...never listen to what the politicians tell you. Especially when they are neocons working for the stock brokers, trying to syphon your money into mutual fund fees.

Technically, not even the Supreme Court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional. However, they do and people accept their decisions witout complaint so thhey continue to get away with it.

I'm sorry...WHUT???

That is the primary function of the Supreme Court. Declaring laws unconstitutional, and also acting as the highest court of appeals.

What am I missing here?

The "pursuit of happiness". Let's look at that. Pursuit is, "an activity that one engages in as a vocation, profession, or avocation." Happiness? "a state of well-being and contentment." Does a pedophile or rapist or robber or drug dealer have an absolute right to pursue those activities tha they dervive a state of well being and contentment from?

So the pursuit is, of necessity, limited. It is also merely a pursuit, not a guarantee. Happiness? Now we have entered into the realm of philosophy, poetry, reverie but hardly something that can, or should, be codified.

So since it is not codified, guaranteed or the responsibility of the government - what is your point. Life is a bitch. Occasionally we smile, laugh, feel satisfied. But it passes and we are not always "happy." Get used to it.

Something about not being able to infringe on someone else’s Rights, you don't get?

Try this... YOUR Rights END where MY Rights BEGIN!

Is that simple enough for you?

You want a "victim" to those crimes that you cite? I'm SURE one can be found...

Now perhaps YOU would be good enough to find the "victim" when someone consumes a marijuana brownie? How about if they even "smoke" it?

Is this making things any clearer for you? If not, I am not sure how else I may be of help.

MY POINT IS, YOU need to find where the Constitution GIVES YOU the Right to make something "absolutely illegal", because first and foremost we all know that the Constitution puts the INDIVIDUAL First, and as long as I have harmed no one else I am pretty sure you can't make something a crime that is not a crime...

I have a Constitutional RIGHT to FACE AN ACCUSER!

While you may feel FREE to "Legislate" the use of anything you see fit to, as far as making its Public use or intoxication illegal in some manner, under the guise of immediate Public Safety, you MAY NOT choose to make something totally illegal out of hand. That is Legislating Morals... Anytime I can commit an act without doing anyone else ANY harm and you want to try to make that action a crime… THAT is Legislating Morals.

Regards,
Gaar

Happiness? "a state of well-being and contentment." Does a pedophile or rapist or robber or drug dealer have an absolute right to pursue those activities tha they dervive a state of well being and contentment from?

No, only if duly elected, and yes respectively.

I'm sorry...WHUT???

That is the primary function of the Supreme Court. Declaring laws unconstitutional, and also acting as the highest court of appeals.

What am I missing here?

Judicial review wasn't really an intended power of the Supreme Court when the Constitution was ratified, that arose later as an interpretation of their power to adjudicate the law. If the Constitution is the highest law then it is logical that laws that violate it may not be written and the Supreme Court is the obvious forum for sorting out which laws qualify when an argument arises.

It's just like if a contract is written and the terms of the contract violate the law. It makes the contract void. Judicial Review is just applying the same principle to legislation. But it's an interpretation of their function, not an explicit power.

Something about Pollock, 1895, Supreme Court YOU didn't understand?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-48,RNWE:en&q=Pollock+1895+Supreme+Court

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1876-1900/reform/pollock.htm

http://www.mury.k12.ut.us/mhs/apus/handouts/supremecourtcases.htm

Pollock v. The Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. (1895). Declared the income tax under the Wilson-Gorman Tariff to be unconstitutional

http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/supremes.html

Also in 1895,... And it struck down a progressive federal tax on high incomes (in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.), arguing that taxing higher incomes at a higher rate was an unconstitutional attack on property. Such decisions were characteristic of 'legal formalism,' a term describing the Court's emphasis on protecting individual rights to make contracts and hold property--above all else.
Now that you have made yourself clear you've shown me the error in my thinking. It is quite an interesting turn of events. The repeal of the tax paragraph from section 9 and subsequent passing of the 16th Amendment has has profound reverberations beyond fiscal dealings and dealt a strong assault on individual freedom from government intrusion into our lives. It is the lynchpin that has turned us from a nation of the people, by the people for the people into a people of the government, by the government for the government.

Interesting. What do you propose to take it's place? A national VAT style sales tax?

Now that you have made yourself clear you've shown me the error in my thinking. It is quite an interesting turn of events. The repeal of the tax paragraph from section 9 and subsequent passing of the 16th Amendment has has profound reverberations beyond fiscal dealings and dealt a strong assault on individual freedom from government intrusion into our lives. It is the lynchpin that has turned us from a nation of the people, by the people for the people into a people of the government, by the government for the government.

Interesting. What do you propose to take it's place? A national VAT style sales tax?

You are being sarcastic, right? Or have you really been convinced? :confused:

Because yes, there are other ways to do such things that would be Constitutional, but it would mean having to change many things...

My first suggestion would be the same as Abe Lincolns nearly a century and a half ago in his first Inaugural Address, where he suggested a call for a Constitutional Congress...

:D

And then we may better "define" how and why Federal Laws should be made.

But again, you were just giving me a hard time with your answer, weren't you? :confused:

Regards,
Gaar

Something about not being able to infringe on someone else’s Rights, you don't get?

Try this... YOUR Rights END where MY Rights BEGIN!

Is that simple enough for you?

You want a "victim" to those crimes that you cite? I'm SURE one can be found...

Now perhaps YOU would be good enough to find the "victim" when someone consumes a marijuana brownie? How about if they even "smoke" it?

Is this making things any clearer for you? If not, I am not sure how else I may be of help.

MY POINT IS, YOU need to find where the Constitution GIVES YOU the Right to make something "absolutely illegal", because first and foremost we all know that the Constitution puts the INDIVIDUAL First, and as long as I have harmed no one else I am pretty sure you can't make something a crime that is not a crime...

I have a Constitutional RIGHT to FACE AN ACCUSER!

While you may feel FREE to "Legislate" the use of anything you see fit to, as far as making its Public use or intoxication illegal in some manner, under the guise of immediate Public Safety, you MAY NOT choose to make something totally illegal out of hand. That is Legislating Morals... Anytime I can commit an act without doing anyone else ANY harm and you want to try to make that action a crime… THAT is Legislating Morals.

Regards,
Gaar

Gaar:

Is your argument about grass or the larger view of the ambigious "pursuit of happiness" statement? If it's about grass then I agree grass should be left alone. Should opiates be likewise left alone though? Should we close down the FDA? I don't think so. Many government operations had their start from corporate malfeasance. I do believe the government should derive their power from the people. I also believe that corporations are not people, unfortunately the courts do not appear to agree.

Damn straight. Funny, when Bush intervenes, people scream out that he's not allowed to do it. When he doesn't, they say its his "job to help."

That's like saying that Michael Jackson shouldn't have held his baby out over the ledge, but having done it, he should just have dropped the kid immediatly rather than keep holding onto him long enough to take him off the balcony.

"First you don't want Bush to be completly useless, and then when he starts doing something you want him to stop fucking everything up. Make up your mind! Do you want him to vacation 40% of the time or do you want him to run our country into the ground. Damn Liberals, a conservative can do no right in their eyes.

Originally Posted by Slap Happy Lunatics
Happiness? "a state of well-being and contentment." Does a pedophile or rapist or robber or drug dealer have an absolute right to pursue those activities tha they dervive a state of well being and contentment from?

No, only if duly elected, and yes respectively.

I don't follow . . . What are you saying?

Gaar:

Is your argument about grass or the larger view of the ambigious "pursuit of happiness" statement? If it's about grass then I agree grass should be left alone. Should opiates be likewise left alone though? Should we close down the FDA? I don't think so. Many government operations had their start from corporate malfeasance. I do believe the government should derive their power from the people. I also believe that corporations are not people, unfortunately the courts do not appear to agree.

The argument applies to everything...

But again, I believe I have espoused also the Right to Legislate them in ways other than making them totally illegal. We have had MUCH MORE success in doing it that way than outright Prohibition, have we not?

Regards,
Gaar

You are being sarcastic, right? Or have you really been convinced? :confused:

Because yes, there are other ways to do such things that would be Constitutional, but it would mean having to change many things...

My first suggestion would be the same as Abe Lincolns nearli a century and a half ago in his first Inagural Address, where he suggested a call for a Constitutional Congress...

:D

And then we may better "define" how and why Federal Laws should be made.

But again, you were just giving me a hard time with your answer, weren't you? :confused:

Regards,
Gaar

No, I was being straight forward and candid. I will pose the same question regarding financing government operations. What type of revenue source do you see as being fair and meeting the needs that the people want met by the government?

I think a progressive sales tax on anything purchased after some set point is superior to say a poll tax which would be inequal in it's impact.

No, I was being straight forward and candid. I will pose the same question regarding financing government operations. What type of revenue source do you see as being fair and meeting the needs that the people want met by the government?

I think a progressive sales tax on anything purchased after some set point is superior to say a poll tax which would be inequal in it's impact.

Well, interesting that someone has first been "convinced" and secondly admit it in such a candid manner...

You are to be commended sir! :D

Now, yes I believe that we should directly tax luxury items the most and work our way down...

In that regard we are able to Tax things more that are not considered "essentials" to our standard of Living. We could also tax personal transportation much more, to increase the desire to use cheaper Public Transportation. Put more taxes on the cost of Public/Private events that require increase Government expenditure to "oversee"...

I am sure there are many other suggestions beyond these, and I would also suggest that we can also cut back on a few of our Public Programs so that we don't have to pay as much as we are used to paying...

We could also have every Government Municipality build a TDP plant at their Public Waste sites and begin selling the Oil and Fertalizers they would be making while doing away with ALL of the Public Waste...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

:D

Regards,
Gaar

Gaar:

Is your argument about grass or the larger view of the ambigious "pursuit of happiness" statement? If it's about grass then I agree grass should be left alone. Should opiates be likewise left alone though? Should we close down the FDA? I don't think so. Many government operations had their start from corporate malfeasance. I do believe the government should derive their power from the people. I also believe that corporations are not people, unfortunately the courts do not appear to agree.

They explicitly do not agree.

For tax purposes the laws on corporations were written that they are to be considered "persons" under the law. This was intended for tax purposes. The corporation would pay taxes rather than the individual members of it. The members would pay their taxes on dividends. The members then began to sue that if they are considered persons then they are entitled to the civil rights of a person.

They explicitly do not agree.

For tax purposes the laws on corporations were written that they are to be considered "persons" under the law. This was intended for tax purposes. The corporation would pay taxes rather than the individual members of it. The members would pay their taxes on dividends. The members then began to sue that if they are considered persons then they are entitled to the civil rights of a person.
Regetably I am exhausted and must sign off. I'll look at this tomorrow as time allows. It spurs many thoughts but the body fails me.

Goodnight.

The argument applies to everything...

But again, I believe I have espoused also the Right to Legislate them in ways other than making them totally illegal. We have had MUCH MORE success in doing it that way than outright Prohibition, have we not?

Regards,
Gaar
Since we're on it, let's use the drug issue as a paradigm. The entire "illegal" drug scenario has created an industry that Al Capone would have cried for and, if anything has created a stronger market. On the other hand, is unfettered access something our society wants to do? So then the better approach may lie somewhere between those two points. Should we enter the market and undercut the dealers prices driving them out of business while we control supply with an iron fist? According to DrugSense.org (http://www.drugsense.org) Federal, State & Local spending as of right now is about $11 billions - the "war" has been waged for some 25+ years with no end in sight.

more tomorrow

Since we're on it, let's use the drug issue as a paradigm. The entire "illegal" drug scenario has created an industry that Al Capone would have cried for and, if anything has created a stronger market. On the other hand, is unfettered access something our society wants to do? So then the better approach may lie somewhere between those two points. Should we enter the market and undercut the dealers prices driving them out of business while we control supply with an iron fist? According to DrugSense.org (http://www.drugsense.org) Federal, State & Local spending as of right now is about $11 billions - the "war" has been waged for some 25+ years with no end in sight.

more tomorrow

I haven't suggested "unfettered access", I suggest looking at each and "restricting" each of their use as we see fit...

In other words, if we feel that someone should be tested with a Battery of exams and then evaluated as to how a given "substance" may affect them in order to recommend a certain "dosage" or even say that the person shouldn't even use the "substance" except while in the company of a treating Physician in a "study" type atmosphere, then that is how we choose to "Regulate" them.

I believe that is far from "unfettered".

Regards,
Gaar

the Republicans haven't suggested any 40 year solutions either. They're still caught up on the plan to contract (or "privatize") Social Security

actually the plan the republicans have thus far proposed is just a starting point.. the details are to be hashed out in the legislature.. but the democrats are furvently against it even getting that far... how can we ever hope to acheive change to a system obviously in trouble if they refuse to address the problems ?

Um, no.

Every problem that Bush says Social Security is in for in 20-40 years, his plan will cause immediatly. His plan will cost trillions and will pump huge amounts of money into the stockmarket in a single shot, artificially inflating chosen stocks, causing financial chaos with consequences far more far reaching that just social security. It will also screw things up for the majority of private investors.

To do absolutly nothing with social security is far, far better than anything that Bush has proposed. To lift the cap will see it sound for the forseeable future.

weather we pay trillions now.. or trillions upon trillions later.. what is the difference. The government is going to flip the bill either way.. its just a matter of how much we have to pay. Today it may cost us 3 trillion.. tomorrow it may cost us 10. Im prepared to have the government bite the bullet on this one and set up a system to fix it now then pay out trillions more later.

And stocks wont just be Artifically inflated just because more investment capital becomes availble on wallstreet... because the prices of the stocks will always stablize.. as people buy more of one stock investors will sell the same amounts of shares to cash in on the rise eventually balancing the price ANYWAy... your comment makes the suggestion that any time new capital is brought into the system, the stock in which the captial goes to is "artifically inflated" which is not the case.

and you say this wills crew things up for the majority of private investors ???? how exactly do you come to this intellectual conclusion.. private investors will have the opprotunity to cash into the rise in stock prices as new capital comes into the system... if anything this is EXACTLY what wallstreet wants!

and again i state, the democrats arn't even advocating lifting the cap.. they advocate doing nothing. and while YOU say its far far better to leave social security as it is, i tend to trust the masses of economic experts much like Alan Greenspan who are calling for immediate change warning of grevious systemic problems if the issue is not addressed.

Im surprised no one has brought up the most obvious problem with Bush's social security plan. Perhaps because not many people know modern history.

The social security system arose in the 1930s as part of the response to the Great Depression. For those of you who do not know, the Great Depression was caused by the collapse of the stock market on what has since been known as Black Thursday (October 24, 1929). The stock market collapse heralded a collapse of the US economy as a whole, and many people found themselves unemployed and without money. Businesses went bankrupt, banks went bankrupt, and people were left with nothing. Social security was part of the reforms put in place to prevent this type of catastrophe in the future.

So, what does Bush propose? He proposes that we invest the social security money into the stock market! The very stock market that caused the Great Depression in the first place! The very stock market whose collapse brought about the reforms that put social security into place. The whole idea of social security was to protect us from things like stock market collapses, and here comes Bush and proposes that we do that by putting the money into the stock market! Anyone else seeing the logic in this? It seems like Bush mustve been too busy getting drunk when they taught the Great Depression in history class. Not only did he not learn the lessons of the stock market collapse, but he has proposed a system that relies on the very thing that caused the great calamity that forced the US to put in safeguards in the first place. Thats like having your car stolen, and deciding that in order to prevent yourself from having to walk everywhere if it should ever be stolen again, you are going to make sure you always have enough money to buy another car, and you are going to store all of that money in the trunk of your car just in case it gets stolen again.

This plan is not just poorly thought out, its also plain stupid.


so instead we should not touch this failing system and simply accept the 1/3 cut in benfits which ive will have been paying into for 40 years... Perhaps YOUR ready to lose 1/3 of your benifits because of systemic problem in demographics and the makeup of the system but I AM NOT!.... Since the time of the great depression the stockmarket has evolved specific defense mechanisms to prevent any such occurance from happening again. Privitization is only allotting an amount of 4% of the money i would otherwise have put into SS earning my measly 1% interets... which i might add is NOT MANDITORY....

Why should I turst a program which has no safeguards... if there was a collapse of the economy tomorrow.. Congress could just absorb all of the money in SS right now and say the system is done we are using this money to rebiuld the economy.. and what... we are left high and dry... Atleast Private accounts gives US the PEOPLE control over PART of our own money!!

Sorry, slavery IS NOT an Original Right...

They just set-up ways of counting "indentured servants" is all.

Regards,
Gaar

and womens sufferage wasn't an orginal right either.. should we be taking away their right to vote ?

Not quite what is being proposed at all. A portion, of the individuals 1/2 of the payment, may be allowed to be invested. There is no allowance for divorcing oneself from SS.

noooo ... only 4% of what can be invested in SS is allowed to be put into the market or a private account.. not 50%. this 4% is essentially divorced from SS because it comes under YOUR control not the GOVERNMENTS... and even tehse private accounts are a CHOICE .. you can CHOOSE to have your entire payment go to SS .. if you so see fit

and womens sufferage wasn't an orginal right either.. should we be taking away their right to vote ?

And what about making additional Laws to enforce the Rights further and not subvert them didn't YOU understand?!?!

Or are you saying that giving Women the Right to Vote is hurting someone else Right under the Constitution? If so, you wouldn't mind pointing out who, would you?

Regards,
Gaar

And what about making additional Laws to enforce the Rights further and not subvert them didn't YOU understand?!?!

Or are you saying that giving Women the Right to Vote is hurting someone else Right under the Constitution? If so, you wouldn't mind pointing out who, would you?

Regards,
Gaar

If you want to be technical about it.. it hurts Mens right to vote... because it decreases the influence men have in governmental affairs and reduces the representation of Men as more actors enter the voting arena.. Mens representation is lessened because their individual votes have a far less impact as more voters are allowed into the process...

to put it nice a simple for u... if of 10 votes i need 6 to get my guy elected.. my 1 vote is very important... 1/6 of what i need.. but if there are 100 votes to distribute ... the importance of my 1 vote is vastly reduced.

Edit: Actually i change my argument.. it isn't hurting mens right to vote.. its hurting mens right to be duely represented in government

Because with the vote of blacks and women, men are not being represented in the manner in which the constitution orginally intended.. my representation is being deminised by the existance of more voters

If you want to be technical about it.. it hurts Mens right to vote... because it decreases the influence men have in governmental affairs and reduces the representation of Men as more actors enter the voting arena.. Mens representation is lessened because their individual votes have a far less impact as more voters are allowed into the process...

to put it nice a simple for u... if of 10 votes i need 6 to get my guy elected.. my 1 vote is very important... 1/6 of what i need.. but if there are 100 votes to distribute ... the importance of my 1 vote is vastly reduced.

Edit: Actually i change my argument.. it isn't hurting mens right to vote.. its hurting mens right to be duely represented in government

Because with the vote of blacks and women, men are not being represented in the manner in which the constitution orginally intended.. my representation is being deminised by the existance of more voters

Actually, I believe the "original" Right to Vote was for "Land Owners" and I don't believe it said anything about what sex they were or the color of their skin...

But eventually we got around to "All Men/Women being Equal" did we not? And ALL of those "changes" only served to "reinforce" EVERYONES Equal Rights, not subvert them, did they not?

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, I believe the "original" Right to Vote was for "Land Owners" and I don't believe it said anything about what sex they were or the color of their skin...

But eventually we got around to "All Men/Women being Equal" did we not? And ALL of those "changes" only served to "reinforce" EVERYONES Equal Rights, not subvert them, did they not?

Regards,
Gaar

the orignal right to vote was for land owners.. but not under the constitution.. the constitution created all MEN equally.... and so even non land owners could be citizens and had the right to vote and have representation in congress. WOMENs equal rights came latter.. in the amendment of sufferage for women and then this made MEN = MEN/Women so it was interpreted.. However under the orginial constitution it was not intended to have WOMEN vote, and by giving them the right to vote it subverted the right of MENS PROPER representation under the law

yes they did get around to giving men and women equal rights.. but my argument is showing how it did not reinforce the rights men were suppose to have.. infact it subverted them to bring women and men on equal footing.. by your interpretation of the law.. this is unconstitutional

the orignal right to vote was for land owners.. but not under the constitution.. the constitution created all MEN equally.... and so even non land owners could be citizens and had the right to vote and have representation in congress. WOMENs equal rights came latter.. in the amendment of sufferage for women and then this made MEN = MEN/Women so it was interpreted.. However under the orginial constitution it was not intended to have WOMEN vote, and by giving them the right to vote it subverted the right of MENS PROPER representation under the law

And again...

I believe that, the "evolution" of the "Rights" within the Constitution are all well and good in so far as they either serve to reinforce or more well define the Right's therein... And when there is a question as to whether something should be retained by the People or "given" to the Government in some manner, that we should ALWAYS favor the Individual Rights over any other concern... Obviously where that Right doesn't infringe on another Individual's Rights.

I do NOT believe there is ANY Right to make ANY Law OR Amendment that SUBVERTS those Rights or makes them less clear than they were before the Law.

Is there something about THIS POSITION people would like to discuss; without trying to "change" my stance or make an argument about something not relevant to it?

Regards,
Gaar

And again...

I believe that, the "evolution" of the "Rights" within the Constitution are all well and good in so far as they either serve to reinforce or more well define the Right's therein... And when there is a question as to whether something should be retained by the People or "given" to the Government in some manner, that we should ALWAYS favor the Individual Rights over any other concern... Obviously where that Right doesn't infringe on another Individual's Rights.

I do NOT believe there is ANY Right to make ANY Law OR Amendment that SUBVERTS those Rights or makes them less clear than they were before the Law.

Is there something about THIS POSITION people would like to discuss; without trying to "change" my stance or make an argument about something not relevant to it?

Regards,
Gaar


First of all.. i dont see how this is addressing my argument.. your saying now there was a CLARIFICATION of the right to vote and representation.. but in making this CLARIFICATION can you not say the right to representation Men held was subverted and lessened ?? If so.. doesn't this meet the criteria you set forth.. no right can be accepted if it subverts the rights of another essentially infrinding on Mens right to proper representation ?

and one other thing .. can you point out one more time where this specific argument was derived fromt he constitution.. ive read it over several times, and the most clear cut position on amendments i see is right here

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
It simply dosn't get clearer then this..

First of all.. i dont see how this is addressing my argument.. your saying now there was a CLARIFICATION of the right to vote and representation.. but in making this CLARIFICATION can you not say the right to representation Men held was subverted and lessened ?? If so.. doesn't this meet the criteria you set forth.. no right can be accepted if it subverts the rights of another essentially infrinding on Mens right to proper representation ?

and one other thing .. can you point out one more time where this specific argument was derived fromt he constitution.. ive read it over several times, and the most clear cut position on amendments i see is right here

It simply dosn't get clearer then this..

It also says that the Judiciary evaluates the "Constitutionality", so we could have a bit of a balance with the States and Congress able to "change" the Constitution while the Judiciary is tasked with Judging the Constitutionality of such changes, can we not?

Are YOU trying to make a Constitutional argument that "men" are granted the Right to vote and that no one else is supposed to have that Right? Wouldn't that actually make some men "more Equal" than others, let alone everyone?

Because, it doesn't SAY ANYWHERE in the Constitution that Women don't have the Right, does it? It was something that was just "assumed" during that age, was it not?

So, because I SAY that the Constitution's INTENT was for an Equal Right for everyone to have a say in their Government, you are going to try and point to what was "done" during that age and how they enumerated that within the Constitution?

Because if THAT IS YOUR argument, might I then ask you how YOU DEFEND the argument that ALL MEN garnered the Right during the Civil War when Slavery was Abolished by Presidential Proclamation which garnered them "Equal Right's" under the Constitution? Again, I have said NO WHERE that changes which better define or more well distribute the Rights are indeed not Lawful, just not those that subvert such Rights...

So, my ARGUMENT BACK to YOU would be that I believed the "Original Constitution" was not Constitutional and required changes to become exactly what they said it would become... "A more perfect Union".

I believe there are parts that STILL are not Right and need to be worked on and hence my joining this discussion. Some of the things we "accept now" need to be challenged in the context of the Constitution and not what "Public perception" of them is... Apply the "Individual's Right's" and "Facing an Accuser" Theory to every Federal Law and see what you get...

Regards,
Gaar

A point of order. SS is not running out of money. It holds promissory notes, backed by the full faith and credit of the US, that more than meet the needs. The government just doesn't want to honor it's debt.
Yes, the government can honor that debt. But they have to print more money to do it. The IOUs are really empty promises from the government to the government. Thank you Lyndon Johnson!

To make sense of the issue, imagin if the opposite were true - For example - Imagine if gays had always been allowed to marry and now there were legislation to revoke and nullify that. Not fair! There would be an uproar! Rightfully so.

Now imagine if everyone already had private accounts and the government wanted to confiscate them, pay out a much much lowere return while useing the money to fund other government programs, tax people earning $80,000/year more, and then take a windfall of $10 billion or so. All because you MAY be too stupid to manage it yourself.

Sounds pretty ridiculous when you look at it that way - like some sort of dictator or communist government move. Well, that is what liberals in congress are arguing for!

Yes, the government can honor that debt. But they have to print more money to do it. The IOUs are really empty promises from the government to the government. Thank you Lyndon Johnson!

Not necessarily. They could ax the useless Department of Education and fund Social Security with ease.

BTW, it was Nixon that severed the last tie between the dollar and the gold standard.

You are forgetting a small detail...
For the way SS works you are actually paying for your father's generation rather than your own account, so that the money doesn't really belong to you but to the previous generation who is now benefitting from it.
So, by messing with SS you are screwing with the lives of the pensioners today and with your own tomorrow when your children will expect "the market" to pay it.
What you're really expecting is the market to magically create extra cash from that 5% devoted in the stock market...
Yes, it will work in the short term but with time you'll meet the law of diminishing returns, meaning that the private funds will get inflationed and thus diminishing their value.

Finally, for the fully privatized SS: you place your hard earned money in a private funds, then the year you get into benefitting them the company that managed your money goes bankrupt... *poof* Now you're screwed.

In short words private social security is like putting money in a bank and expecting it will always give an interest superior to inflation... Quite hard, isn't it?

Not necessarily. They could ax the useless Department of Education and fund Social Security with ease.

BTW, it was Nixon that severed the last tie between the dollar and the gold standard.
Nixon screwed us too, but I was alluding to the practice of dipping into the 'trust fund'. Didn't LBJ start that so he could finance Vietnam without a lot of spending bills?

noooo ... only 4% of what can be invested in SS is allowed to be put into the market or a private account.. not 50%. this 4% is essentially divorced from SS because it comes under YOUR control not the GOVERNMENTS... and even tehse private accounts are a CHOICE .. you can CHOOSE to have your entire payment go to SS .. if you so see fit

These numbers are wrong. When the President's Commission on Strengthening Social Security talks about 2% and 4% carveouts, these are not 2% or 4% of the Social Security contribution. These are 2% and 4% *payroll taxes.*

Currently, Social Security operates on a 12.4% payroll tax. So 2% and 4% carveouts would be 16% and 32% of the total SS contribution, respectively. The breakdown would be 2% private/10.4% SSA or 4% private/8.4% SSA.

Nixon screwed us too, but I was alluding to the practice of dipping into the 'trust fund'. Didn't LBJ start that so he could finance Vietnam without a lot of spending bills?

The trust fund started in 1983. On this particular issue, nobody screwed us but Ronnie, the Bushes, and Clinton.

The trust fund started in 1983. On this particular issue, nobody screwed us but Ronnie, the Bushes, and Clinton.
The trust fund yes, but LBJ was the first to lump the accounting for Social Security (and many other federal trust funds) into the "unified" federal budget. Politcians, knowing a good thing when they see it, continued to follow the practice.

It also says that the Judiciary evaluates the "Constitutionality", so we could have a bit of a balance with the States and Congress able to "change" the Constitution while the Judiciary is tasked with Judging the Constitutionality of such changes, can we not?

ACtually this is not the manner in which the Constitution is directed.. if the States create an Amendment to the Constitution.. it is not the Judiciaries role to evalute the constitutionality of that amendment... but rather to enterpolate it for other laws to be judged. This is why if an Amendment were to be passed banning homosexual marraige it would remain.. becuase the Judiciary does not exist to question the amdenments but to INTERPRET them.

Are YOU trying to make a Constitutional argument that "men" are granted the Right to vote and that no one else is supposed to have that Right? Wouldn't that actually make some men "more Equal" than others, let alone everyone?

How are some men "more Equal" then others ? it really depends on the interpretation... but if we look at the strictist of interpretations its clear ALL MEN have the right to vote... not women, not children... So no.. some men would not be more "equal" then others.

Because, it doesn't SAY ANYWHERE in the Constitution that Women don't have the Right, does it? It was something that was just "assumed" during that age, was it not?

Technically it does.. because it says just WHO DOES have the right to vote.. and women were not TECHNICALLY included... by excluding women in the category of those who CAN vote they are be default left in the category of those who cant.. just as it does not say EXPLICITLY non-Citizens or foreginers can't vote but it says only CITIZENS may... according to your interpretation does this mean non-citizens and Foreginers infact HAVE the right to vote since it does not SPECIFICLALY barr them from doing so ??

So, because I SAY that the Constitution's INTENT was for an Equal Right for everyone to have a say in their Government, you are going to try and point to what was "done" during that age and how they enumerated that within the Constitution?

By stating the INTENT of the constitution you are making interpretations of the words outside of the words themselves... if you look STRICTLY at the words, there is never mention of women in the allowance of voting until the suffrage amendment which STRICTLY gives them the right to vote... We can then say by looking at the words themsleves

Because if THAT IS YOUR argument, might I then ask you how YOU DEFEND the argument that ALL MEN garnered the Right during the Civil War when Slavery was Abolished by Presidential Proclamation which garnered them "Equal Right's" under the Constitution? Again, I have said NO WHERE that changes which better define or more well distribute the Rights are indeed not Lawful, just not those that subvert such Rights...

First of all.. i know you are not trying to make the argument that ALL slaves were freed because of the Emancipation Proclamation.. becuase this is not the case :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1549.html
And even in states in which they were freed.. they were STILL not granted EQUAL RIGHTS by any measure. Freedom for slaves wouldn't come until the Constitutional amendment came much later specifically granting them that freedom.

Again I do belive all MEN garnered the right to vote .. weather or not they exercised it was their issue. I fail to see what your argument is here ..

So, my ARGUMENT BACK to YOU would be that I believed the "Original Constitution" was not Constitutional and required changes to become exactly what they said it would become... "A more perfect Union".

So your saying... its quite possible for the Constitution to not be Constitutional ? what is your rational for this.. becuase the Coinstitution itself is the law by which we base all other laws... and has no higher authority... so how can at any point the highest authority of the land be in violation of itself if it so does not decree ???? Your logic is flawed. I agree.. that AFTER the AMENDMENTS were passed changing the Constitution the law itself changed so that the old laws were considered Unconstitutional.. however YOU have stated that any law which subverts the RIGHTS of another must be considered UNLAWFUL.. my argument CLEARLY shows how giving equal rights to MORE PEOPLE actually subverts the rights of the ones already protected under the Law.

It also says that the Judiciary evaluates the "Constitutionality", so we could have a bit of a balance with the States and Congress able to "change" the Constitution while the Judiciary is tasked with Judging the Constitutionality of such changes, can we not?

Are YOU trying to make a Constitutional argument that "men" are granted the Right to vote and that no one else is supposed to have that Right? Wouldn't that actually make some men "more Equal" than others, let alone everyone?

Because, it doesn't SAY ANYWHERE in the Constitution that Women don't have the Right, does it? It was something that was just "assumed" during that age, was it not?

So, because I SAY that the Constitution's INTENT was for an Equal Right for everyone to have a say in their Government, you are going to try and point to what was "done" during that age and how they enumerated that within the Constitution?

Because if THAT IS YOUR argument, might I then ask you how YOU DEFEND the argument that ALL MEN garnered the Right during the Civil War when Slavery was Abolished by Presidential Proclamation which garnered them "Equal Right's" under the Constitution? Again, I have said NO WHERE that changes which better define or more well distribute the Rights are indeed not Lawful, just not those that subvert such Rights...

So, my ARGUMENT BACK to YOU would be that I believed the "Original Constitution" was not Constitutional and required changes to become exactly what they said it would become... "A more perfect Union".


Umm...No. If something is part of the Constitution it is, by definition, constitutional. Not even the Supreme Court asserts the right to challange the Constitution. Once an Amendment is passed the only way to alter or repeal it is with another Amendment

Umm...No. If something is part of the Constitution it is, by definition, constitutional. Not even the Supreme Court asserts the right to challange the Constitution. Once an Amendment is passed the only way to alter or repeal it is with another Amendment

exactly.. thankyou

I'd rather put my money in a bank, than in stocks. My friends mother won a lawsuit when he was born, and got 100,000 dollars. She put it in a nice bank, and I forget what he has now, but its a crapload. By age 30, he will make his first million from the account.Even counting inflation, he will have tens of millions of dollars there in his fourties or fifties, and will be set for life if he keeps a good percentage of it in there.

I'd rather put my money in a bank, than in stocks. My friends mother won a lawsuit when he was born, and got 100,000 dollars. She put it in a nice bank, and I forget what he has now, but its a crapload. By age 30, he will make his first million from the account.Even counting inflation, he will have tens of millions of dollars there in his fourties or fifties, and will be set for life if he keeps a good percentage of it in there.

That's a great plan if you can find a bank that'll actually pay interest.

The trust fund yes, but LBJ was the first to lump the accounting for Social Security (and many other federal trust funds) into the "unified" federal budget. Politcians, knowing a good thing when they see it, continued to follow the practice.

I agree with you that this is a very big problem. I think that we're identifying the same issue here, but just to clarify:

Social Security tax is a dedicated payroll tax that is a separate entity from income tax. This money is supposed to be entirely separate from the federal budget. However, in the years in which the SSA was operating at a surplus, these surplus moneys were set aside in the form of bonds, which is fundamentally the federal government borrowing against the national pension fund. Now, in 2018 (not 2042), the federal government will be required to redeem some 200 billion worth of trust fund bonds, which will force a budget crisis.

The reason I'm spelling this out is because this crisis is at its heart not a Social Security crisis, but a federal budget crisis. The federal govt. has written checks it cannot cash against the Social Security payroll tax. In essence, this means that reckless government spending is not covered by income tax, but by the regressive SS payroll tax (regressive because the SSA does not tax earnings above $90,000).

What this does is impose a double standard on the SSA. Since 1983, the SSA has been running at a surplus and has shored up $1.7 trillion in bonds in anticipation of the boomer retirement, at which point it will run at a deficit. But because the federal government has already spent these surpluses (folding the SS payroll tax in with income tax), it will be required to cover the deficit out of future income tax. But rather than honoring the debt of the bonds, the federal government is crying crisis and looking to weasel out of the debt. The double standard is ignoring the SSA's surplus years but holding them to their deficit years.

This is not a Social Security crisis. This is a federal budget crisis. And the privatization carveout scheme is nothing more than an attempt to foist the budget crisis off onto those who can least afford it: it's an attempt to resolve the crisis by defrauding taxpayers of their payroll tax contributions. It's regressive, it's nasty, and if a corporation tried a similar stunt with their pension funds, people would go to jail.

Old people don't need social security...they need to be studied to determine what nutrients can possibly be extracted for the good of the younger generation!

I agree with you that this is a very big problem. I think that we're identifying the same issue here, but just to clarify:
...
This is not a Social Security crisis. This is a federal budget crisis. And the privatization carveout scheme is nothing more than an attempt to foist the budget crisis off onto those who can least afford it: it's an attempt to resolve the crisis by defrauding taxpayers of their payroll tax contributions. It's regressive, it's nasty, and if a corporation tried a similar stunt with their pension funds, people would go to jail.
Yes, I think we agree that the privatization of any part of the payroll tax is not going to cure the solvency of Social Security. That should require the Congress to exercise some self control and stop using trust fund money as part of the general fund. Fat chance that will ever happen.

I don't buy into the idea that it hurts anyone. The lowest income earners will still pay 12% of their wages into a fund. A small part of that will remain theirs and will be a way for them to actually build wealth. That's a big change from just paying their taxes and waiting for their turn on the dole.

That last paragraph of yours is a little bit much. I think demagogery is a 'nice' way to describe it. Social Security, in it's present incarnation, is a giant fraud. Anyone who proposed such a scheme for private pensions would certainly go to jail. Can you imagine the reaction if GE decided to take all the money in their pension fund and run the company? Only the fed can get away with fraud like that.

That last paragraph of yours is a little bit much. I think demagogery is a 'nice' way to describe it. Social Security, in it's present incarnation, is a giant fraud. Anyone who proposed such a scheme for private pensions would certainly go to jail. Can you imagine the reaction if GE decided to take all the money in their pension fund and run the company? Only the fed can get away with fraud like that.

That's exactly what I'm saying. That the federal govt. is using the money in the pension fund to cover its debts. If a private company tried the same stunt, their execs would go to jail.

Why is it that when you say it, it isn't demagogery?

I don't buy into the idea that it hurts anyone. The lowest income earners will still pay 12% of their wages into a fund. A small part of that will remain theirs and will be a way for them to actually build wealth. That's a big change from just paying their taxes and waiting for their turn on the dole.

The idea of "building wealth" is also misrepresented under the carveout proposals. The wealthy will have wealth, no matter what. But for the two-thirds of retirees who currently draw half or more of their retirement from the SSA, they would see no real wealth out of either a 2% or a 4% carveout.

People in this position would be required to annuitize their private accounts upon retirement. This means the money will be doled out in monthly allotments, like the SSA, and that the money cannot be left to heirs.

This is not real wealth.

The idea of "building wealth" is also misrepresented under the carveout proposals. The wealthy will have wealth, no matter what. But for the two-thirds of retirees who currently draw half or more of their retirement from the SSA, they would see no real wealth out of either a 2% or a 4% carveout.

People in this position would be required to annuitize their private accounts upon retirement. This means the money will be doled out in monthly allotments, like the SSA, and that the money cannot be left to heirs.

This is not real wealth.
Not in the form you describe. But there is still no pending legislation, so it's hard to criticize it. As long as the left engages in their hysterical opposition, there will never be pending legislation. That's too bad. Compromise is where work should get done in government.

Hey. I've gone to hear Cato guys make their case on the subject, I've gone to hear Krugman make his case.

This is not hysterical, and the arguments I'm providing have plenty of meat on them.

The reason I'm in opposition to this privatization scheme, even in its rudimentary form--which I might add makes no provision for the other forms of social insurance provided by the SSA (such as survivors and disability benefits) and makes no provision for a safety net function (hence I assume an annuitization plan is most likely, which will lop another 15% off the value of the accounts)--is that it does not seem well thought out. It seems primarily motivated out of a dislike for governmentally administered programs, even those as beneficial as the SSA. Both carveout plans will hasten the collapse of the SSA funds and will require tremendous federal borrowing. The carveout plans reduce the guaranteed benefits, which is the primary goal of the SSA. It is not a "retirement fund." It is social insurance. In the case of survivors and the disabled, it pays out far more than they pay in. Of course it's going to earn a low interest rate, there are expenses that go beyond the basis points of the trust management itself. It seems that these carveout schemes are designed not to help the SSA meet its goals, but to help the government avoid its own budget crunch by dodging the repayment of bonds. But, given the trillions in additional debt the federal govt. will assume to put either carveout into effect, it's cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Compromise does not mean accepting an ill-conceived scheme. It means considering alternatives. The opposition is strong because the administration came out swinging on this issue. When the administration starts to look at alternatives, then we've got an arena for compromise.

Hey. I've gone to hear Cato guys make their case on the subject, I've gone to hear Krugman make his case.

This is not hysterical, and the arguments I'm providing have plenty of meat on them.

The reason I'm in opposition to this privatization scheme, even in its rudimentary form--which I might add makes no provision for the other forms of social insurance provided by the SSA (such as survivors and disability benefits) and makes no provision for a safety net function (hence I assume an annuitization plan is most likely, which will lop another 15% off the value of the accounts)--is that it does not seem well thought out. It seems primarily motivated out of a dislike for governmentally administered programs, even those as beneficial as the SSA. Both carveout plans will hasten the collapse of the SSA funds and will require tremendous federal borrowing. The carveout plans reduce the guaranteed benefits, which is the primary goal of the SSA. It is not a "retirement fund." It is social insurance. In the case of survivors and the disabled, it pays out far more than they pay in. Of course it's going to earn a low interest rate, there are expenses that go beyond the basis points of the trust management itself. It seems that these carveout schemes are designed not to help the SSA meet its goals, but to help the government avoid its own budget crunch by dodging the repayment of bonds. But, given the trillions in additional debt the federal govt. will assume to put either carveout into effect, it's cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Compromise does not mean accepting an ill-conceived scheme. It means considering alternatives. The opposition is strong because the administration came out swinging on this issue. When the administration starts to look at alternatives, then we've got an arena for compromise.
You're not hysterical, it's the folks like Pelosi and Reid that are behaving like children. And I'm not on board with privatization as a sole plan to 'save" social security. It needs more than just another tax increase, too.

Personally, I like to shop for my insurance. I don't like the way we are forced into health insurance plans because of federal mandates and I don't like the way we are forced into old age insurance. No private pension plan could ever be run like Social Security. I'd rather take my chances and my 12% and go elsewhere.

I wasn't suggesting that compromise meant adoption of the Administration proposal. The current system is barely workable and needs an overhaul. I mean, we've gone from a payroll tax of a couple percent at the inception of Social Security to a 12% tax today. Earnings caps keep rising and benefits are cut. I think there are some sound ideas out there and I'd like to hear them. All I hear is hyperbole and demagogery. I'd like to bring the Fair Tax into the debate. That would help out enormously. But as the original post mentioned, the only alternative ever proposed has been that there is no problem. Let's get this thing introduced and discussed.

It seems they actually DID say it was at one time...

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/16thHistory.htm

The Founding Fathers had rejected income taxes (or any other direct taxes) unless they were apportioned to each state according to population. Nevertheless, an income tax was levied during the Civil War and upheld by the Supreme Court on somewhat tenuous reasoning. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In connection with the two Pollock cases reviewed in 1895, the Court declared that the act violated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.

You said Social Security was unconstitutional, it isn't. The Supreme court obviously reversed it's previous decision on the income tax, so it is not unconstitutuinal.

There's another entirely different plan that would solve all the SSI problems forever. That's the abolition of the IRS, income tax, and payroll taxes. Replace the government-instituted larceny with the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org). A national retail sales tax would create so many more jobs and cause our economy to grow like never before. Worrying about how to fund SSI into the next century would be unecessary.

Some claim a retail or sales tax would be unfair to the poor as they spend more of their income on necessary items. Those who make more money have more disposable income that they can simply sock away and not pay any tax on.

If this assumption were true, wouldn't a flat tax be fairer? People below the poverty level would pay no tax; all others would pay the same percentage. This way the people who make more money will pay tax on all their income. Oh, and no deductions for anyone for anything.

What y'all think?

Im surprised no one has brought up the most obvious problem with Bush's social security plan. Perhaps because not many people know modern history.

You have forgotten that laws have been put in place that have and will prevent another "Black Friday."

If ALL Amendments are Legal, then HOW can they be challenged Legally?

Amendments cannot be challenged. They can however be repealed by passing another amendment, which is what happened with prohibition.

The laws that are challenged are those laws passed by Congress and the State Legislatures. Sometimes those laws go against the Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of The Land, so it trumps all other laws.

I've been reading your posts in this thread and I highly suggest you take some Civics and history courses.

Some claim a retail or sales tax would be unfair to the poor as they spend more of their income on necessary items. Those who make more money have more disposable income that they can simply sock away and not pay any tax on.

If this assumption were true, wouldn't a flat tax be fairer? People below the poverty level would pay no tax; all others would pay the same percentage. This way the people who make more money will pay tax on all their income. Oh, and no deductions for anyone for anything.

What y'all think?
Guys follow the link, read the FAQ, then ask informed questions. Flat taxes suck. What keeps Congress from "engineering" the rates and exemptions to promote behavior they prefer? Not too damn much.

I'd rather put my money in a bank, than in stocks. My friends mother won a lawsuit when he was born, and got 100,000 dollars. She put it in a nice bank, and I forget what he has now, but its a crapload. By age 30, he will make his first million from the account.Even counting inflation, he will have tens of millions of dollars there in his fourties or fifties, and will be set for life if he keeps a good percentage of it in there.

Would have made a lot more if it, or a portion of it, were invested in the stock market.

Unfortunately your opinion disagrees with that of the vast majority of historians. In fact the social security administration its self lists Black Thursday as the catalyst for the Great Depression (go to their website and read the history section). Its called Black Thursday for a reason

The stock crash at the beginning of the great depression was caused by poor banking practices which allowed an extremely large amount of stocks to be purchased on margin then cascading, using those stocks as backing for additional stocks, etc. Stocks were too high, a correction had margins called. There was not enough capital to keep the companies afloat, it simply didn't exist.

These banking practices have been corrected.

Bottom line, it's a 15% tax that pretends to guarantee me a retirement. It takes money from me, when I am young and paid relatively little ,and trying to get through University, raise a family and establish my household and promises to give it back to me after my children are grown, my mortgage is paid, when my income wil be at it's highest. When I need it least.

Oh, and it's taxed again as income.

I'd rather put my money in a bank, than in stocks. My friends mother won a lawsuit when he was born, and got 100,000 dollars. She put it in a nice bank, and I forget what he has now, but its a crapload. By age 30, he will make his first million from the account.Even counting inflation, he will have tens of millions of dollars there in his fourties or fifties, and will be set for life if he keeps a good percentage of it in there.
To turn one million dollars into ten million dollars in ten years you would require a 25% rate of interest. Obviously you know dick about money or your friends portfolio.

The stock crash at the beginning of the great depression was caused by poor banking practices which allowed an extremely large amount of stocks to be purchased on margin then cascading, using those stocks as backing for additional stocks, etc. Stocks were too high, a correction had margins called. There was not enough capital to keep the companies afloat, it simply didn't exist.

.

margin, margin calls, OMFG - why don't you discuss the finer points of PE ratios and book value with these folks also. Do you really expect anyone who is an opponent of self responsibility to understand any of that?

Guys follow the link, read the FAQ, then ask informed questions. Flat taxes suck. What keeps Congress from "engineering" the rates and exemptions to promote behavior they prefer? Not too damn much.
What keeps them from engineering sales taxes to promote behavior they prefer? Equally little.

What keeps them from engineering sales taxes to promote behavior they prefer? Equally little.

They do it all the time, and they're not even any good at it.

They're considering an annual (as opposed to 'at the pump') tax on gasoline consumption in some parts of the country to encourage conservation. All it's going to do is discourage carpooling because whoever drives will get stuck with the tax.

In NYC they passed a huge cigarette tax in order to discourage smoking. The mayor pointed out that cigarette sales dropped like a stone after the sales tax was passed. All that happened was that people started buying their cigarettes on the internet and from nearby Indian Resrevations.

margin, margin calls, OMFG - why don't you discuss the finer points of PE rati and book value with these folks also. Do you really expect anyone who is an opponent of self responsibility to understand any of that?


LOL, good point. Miseducation is the root of most problems. Keeps arguements from the logical and in the "feelings" realm.


Edit: I read your profile, I guess the stock discussion is right up your alley.
I learned stocks at about 12 years old by buying shares in the locla electric company, then badgering my dad everytime the stock moved more than the daily fluctuation.

Stocks aren't the only things that make money. Treasuries, Munis, corporates, ADRs, ETFs, UITs, Mutuals, Annuities, convertibles and preferreds are all viable, though Variable annuties are best suited for the social security discussion IMHO. pretty much can't lose. It's be more acceptable if the feds backed VA providers in a similar way they back the FDIC - just the income instead of the principal. So far there has never been a need, but it'd help the chicken littles, er liberals sleep at night and be a revenue source for the govt.

What keeps them from engineering sales taxes to promote behavior they prefer? Equally little.
But the taxpayers have a whole lot more control over what they buy.

Sorry, slavery IS NOT an Original Right...

They just set-up ways of counting "indentured servants" is all.

Regards,
Gaar

This is so funny. I guess someone doesn't know the Constitution as well as he/she thinks they do.

Look in the Constitution and you'll find....

THREE-FIFTHS COMPROMISE

So yes, slavery was an original right.

Something about Pollock, 1895, Supreme Court YOU didn't understand?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-48,RNWE:en&q=Pollock+1895+Supreme+Court

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1876-1900/reform/pollock.htm

http://www.mury.k12.ut.us/mhs/apus/handouts/supremecourtcases.htm

Pollock v. The Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. (1895). Declared the income tax under the Wilson-Gorman Tariff to be unconstitutional

http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/supremes.html

Also in 1895,... And it struck down a progressive federal tax on high incomes (in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.), arguing that taxing higher incomes at a higher rate was an unconstitutional attack on property. Such decisions were characteristic of 'legal formalism,' a term describing the Court's emphasis on protecting individual rights to make contracts and hold property--above all else.

Then the US Congress passed the Income Tax Amendment and it was ratified by the States. Therefor, Income Taxes are now legal in the US. If you don't like it, write your Congressmen and Senators to repeal it.

actually the plan the republicans have thus far proposed is just a starting point.. the details are to be hashed out in the legislature.. but the democrats are furvently against it even getting that far... how can we ever hope to acheive change to a system obviously in trouble if they refuse to address the problems ?

Democrats way of thinking: If ain't broke, don't fix it

Republicans way of thinking: If it looks like things are about to end, no matter how far in the future, propose changes to make sure it doesn't get broken.

Not necessarily. They could ax the useless Department of Education and fund Social Security with ease.

Here here. Department of Education does need to go. The Feds shouldn't be involved in education period.

Finally, for the fully privatized SS: you place your hard earned money in a private funds, then the year you get into benefitting them the company that managed your money goes bankrupt... *poof* Now you're screwed.

In short words private social security is like putting money in a bank and expecting it will always give an interest superior to inflation... Quite hard, isn't it?

No and No.

1) If the company managing your funds, all you lose is the fund manager, not the diversified funds. No decrease in value.

2) Putting my money into an insured bank, with even marginal management, should always beat inflation. In fact, part of my portfolio is arranged that way and has been for many years. In fact, it earns more than the expected return I portion I should be getting from Social Security.

I think you do not have sufficient knowledge of how finance works. Taking the private investment portion and purchasing long term government bonds will probably earn more then the SS return.

Guys follow the link, read the FAQ, then ask informed questions. Flat taxes suck. What keeps Congress from "engineering" the rates and exemptions to promote behavior they prefer? Not too damn much.

Ever take look at the arcane and huge set of rules that is the IRS code?

Noone can understand it. IRS advice is not a legal defense if you are found in violation. The set of rules we currently have is impossible to follow.

At least a flat tax or national retail sales tax will remove the spectre of inadvertant fraud from the average law abiding citizen.

No and No.

1) If the company managing your funds, all you lose is the fund manager, not the diversified funds. No decrease in value.

2) Putting my money into an insured bank, with even marginal management, should always beat inflation. In fact, part of my portfolio is arranged that way and has been for many years. In fact, it earns more than the expected return I portion I should be getting from Social Security.

I think you do not have sufficient knowledge of how finance works. Taking the private investment portion and purchasing long term government bonds will probably earn more then the SS return.
Since you used the term 'probably' i presume then that you know little about the actual returns of social security. It is out there and can be found. I could tell you where, but I think not today. I've posted it here before and I get tired of doing other peoples homework. I will only say the return is mostly contingient on income and age.

The idea of "building wealth" is also misrepresented under the carveout proposals. The wealthy will have wealth, no matter what. But for the two-thirds of retirees who currently draw half or more of their retirement from the SSA, they would see no real wealth out of either a 2% or a 4% carveout.

People in this position would be required to annuitize their private accounts upon retirement. This means the money will be doled out in monthly allotments, like the SSA, and that the money cannot be left to heirs.

This is not real wealth.

Right now, 0 of the SS can be left to heirs. So any amount over $0 is better than nothing. The privatized portion of the account can be left for heirs. The smart thing to do is to leave those funds in investments to earn even more.

I also think there may be a misunderstanding that it is possible to live well on Social Security funds. It is not, the amount is insufficient. But I can do a much better job with that 15% than the governemtn can.

If all I did was incvest that money in 20 or 30 year treasury bonds (also backed by the full faith of the Gov) or used the money on a graduate degree, I would have done much better.

Since you used the term 'probably' i presume then that you know little about the actual returns of social security. It is out there and can be found. I could tell you where, but I think not today. I've posted it here before and I get tired of doing other peoples homework. I will only say the return is mostly contingient on income and age.

I do know the returns. I am well versed. I am sorry you assume everyone is ignorant. I have been around just a bit.

Yes, there are no absolutes, just as there will probably be a U.S. government in 100 years, I would probably do better with long term bonds. That is, unless I live until a very old age, which I probably will not. You are using actual tables, I am using personal and family history.

Just as most will probably live long enough to collect some social security, Many, will pay 15% into the system for their entire working lives, and collect $0. they will pass along 0% if that money to their heirs, they will not pass "Go".

If that was an actual investment, they would loose 100% of their capital, let alone any anticipated interest. Only a fool would make that investment.

That said, there is a way to guarantee a good return (given the gov, SS, etc. survives) have lots of children late in life. They will collect SS from your "account" until they reach 18 yrs.

I do know the returns. I am well versed. I am sorry you assume everyone is ignorant. I have been around just a bit.

.

My, testy today, aren't you. You shouldn't be so quick to presume my opinion before I have posted it. Egg is good for hair, but bad for face.

Democrats way of thinking: If ain't broke, don't fix it.

Right, wait until you're in a wreck, THEN put on the seatbelt. Or maybe wait until your current well is dry, THEN dig a new one.



Republicans way of thinking: If it looks like things are about to end, no matter how far in the future, propose changes to make sure it doesn't get broken.
Sounds smart to me.

My, testy today, aren't you. You shouldn't be so quick to presume my opinion before I have posted it. Egg is good for hair, but bad for face.

Since you used the term 'probably' i presume then that you know little about the actual returns of social security. It is out there and can be found. I could tell you where, but I think not today. I've posted it here before and I get tired of doing other peoples homework. I will only say the return is mostly contingient on income and age.

It was your opinion. You assumed I was not being precise when I used probably. You presumed I new little about SS returns. You assumed I knew not what I spoke of because you were exaspirated with having to perform my homework.

Here here. Department of Education does need to go. The Feds shouldn't be involved in education period.

Thank *goodness* someone out there understands. :)

The whole problem with Social Security isn't that it's old and needs to be renovated, it's not that it's a democrat plan, it's not that republicans want to see it gone so they can deal a final death blow to the democratic national party.

The problem with Social Security is that for every dollar you put into Social Security there is an interest that's put on it every year. That interest is for paying those on Social Security. It can be in the billions but the problem is in the fact that the government doesn't know when to keep it's hands off the interest. When the government dips into Social Security they take from you for porkbarrel issues like studying fish in a representative or senator's state. It doesn't go to the people. The idea of a lockbox is stupid because it will never happen. What needs to be done is a reform on porkbarrel spending so that the government doesn't have the need to take from Social Security.

In the 60's-70's it was 6-8 people paying in for every 1 person that got a check. Now it's 4 to 1.. If the presidents policy on Social Security were to be put into effect you would see a severe decline in those paying in. So where does that leave those on Social Security? If noone is paying in then your screwing the previous generations who are still living and believe me.. the death rate in our country for older people isn't changing anytime soon so expect to see alot of people living into their 80's and 90's.

Fiscal responsibility is a serious issue in this country that needs to be given it's fair amount of time in the sun so that it can be enacted. With the rising cost of oil, the rising cost of healthcare, and the seemingly tepid unemployment rate that likes to yo-yo, I believe the last thing we need to do right now is cut Social Security with something as audacious as simply saying to the people that they can begin to stop putting into Social Security.

My old chorus teacher used to say, " The old and wise are the ones who tell those who are young and strong the paths that do not tread with danger and death, and in return they simply asked for comfort in their old age. "

If you want to take your money out of Social Security then fine, it's your right as a citizen of the United States if it passes. Just remember that the vast majority of older people are not living wealthy, they have to go from paying for their perscriptions to cutting the pills in half in order to make it stretch out so they can pay their utility bill the next month. If Social Security were ever anything in time, remember it as your thanks to the previous generations for those who cannae work are entitled to it for the decades they've put in for the generations before them. Are you suddenly going to turn your back on those who for one reason or another are unable to work or have retired and found the only means for them is Social Security?

I made this post as a point that not every yard of grass is greener on the other side. Social Security must be dealt with kind hands. It's one of the single greatest legacies our country has and this plan for private accounts while perhaps an auxillary to the true fix for Social Security should not have itself in the main headlines. It is Not a fix, it's a band-aid for a wound that the collective people must hold firm so it doesn't continue bleeding. With this legislation you'll simply have too many people reaching for a band-aid and then Social Security will hemmorage. Once it does that your screwed.

Excuse the errors in grammer, writing from work so I didn't have much time to proof this. If your wondering, I'm a Political Science major graduate with another major in History. I'm also republican leaning so it's not partisan bias I'm writing. It's just plain common sense. Feel free to email me at orphic@gmail dot com .. you know how to fix the addy and I'm trying to keep the spam down in that mailbox.

If the presidents policy on Social Security were to be put into effect you would see a severe decline in those paying in.

Um... like no.

1) Private accounts are OPTIONAL. There is no way to say what percentage of people would go for them.

2) At maximum, it's 13% of an individual's yearly contribution into SS, up to $1000.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_04/b3917001_mz001.htm


Please post fact, not hype.

Right now, 0 of the SS can be left to heirs. So any amount over $0 is better than nothing. The privatized portion of the account can be left for heirs.

You're misunderstanding my point:

Given: Under the PCSS proposal, the carveout will result in reduced guaranteed benefits. This means we go from the current figure (somewhere around 10 Gs a year) to something lower. Assuming the cut is no deeper than the 32% represented by a 4% carveout, we're talking 7 Gs. This is a generous assumption. Guaranteed benefits will likely sink disproportionately to the carveout.

Given this, one of two things will happen.

1) The government will enact no policy regarding access to the private accounts and people will be free to do as they see fit. This totally demolishes the "social insurance" aspect of the SSA, as the safety net feature is gimped, seeing as how $7,000 a year is not really a liveable wage.

2) The government will require that poorer retirees (the 2/3 of all retirees who draw half or more of their income from the SSA) annuitize their accounts (basically, the retiree gives the money to an insurance company, the insurance company figures out the retiree's lifespan, and breaks the account into monthly payments that fit this estimate. The upside of this is that if the retiree outlives the estimate, they'll receive a steady income for the duration of their life, even after their account would have been depleted. This cost is offset by the retirees who die before their estimated expiration date. This is basically what we've got going with the SSA, but with a much smaller risk pool). The downside is that this money cannot be left to heirs and also that the insurer will take somewhere around 10-15% profit.

One of two things will happen: Either Social Security will stop providing even the substandard baseline it currently provides, or there will be no "real wealth" generated (except among those wealthy enough not to rely on Social Security).

Zero is no better than zero. The only people drawing "real wealth" out of this carveout plan would be those who are already wealthy. This is not a program for Johnny Punchcard and Janey Lunchpail.

You're misunderstanding my point:

Given: Under the PCSS proposal, the carveout will result in reduced guaranteed benefits. This means we go from the current figure (somewhere around 10 Gs a year) to something lower. Assuming the cut is no deeper than the 32% represented by a 4% carveout, we're talking 7 Gs. This is a generous assumption. Guaranteed benefits will likely sink disproportionately to the carveout.

Nice to see someone finally talking figures. Your terms and presumptions need clarification. Are 'G's grand-$1000? There is no guranteed threshold in SSI, the income is based on years worked and income. Benefits can fluctualte quite a bit from one person to the next. $10,000 is probably a good average, but there are MANY people who receive less. Also, where do you get a presumption of a 32% cut? Additionally, you make what I believe is an incorrect preumption - that ALL guranteed benefits would be cut and not just the ones of the people participating in the optional private accounts. Clarify these things then we can discuss.




Given this, one of two things will happen.

1) The government will enact no policy regarding access to the private accounts and people will be free to do as they see fit. This totally demolishes the "social insurance" aspect of the SSA, as the safety net feature is gimped, seeing as how $7,000 a year is not really a liveable wage.
So you are worried that people will spend their nest egg and it is the job of government to 'protect them from themselves'? Also, there are plenty of people earning less than $7000 yr on SSI right now. It was never intended to completely replace earned income or a 'living wage'.



2) The government will require that poorer retirees (the 2/3 of all retirees who draw half or more of their income from the SSA) annuitize their accounts (basically, the retiree gives the money to an insurance company, the insurance company figures out the retiree's lifespan, and breaks the account into monthly payments that fit this estimate. The upside of this is that if the retiree outlives the estimate, they'll receive a steady income for the duration of their life, even after their account would have been depleted. This cost is offset by the retirees who die before their estimated expiration date. This is basically what we've got going with the SSA, but with a much smaller risk pool). The downside is that this money cannot be left to heirs and also that the insurer will take somewhere around 10-15% profit.

First of all, you just contradicted your #1 statement since with an immediate annuity there is no withdrawl benefit. Second, where do you determine that the govt willrequire annuitization for anyone, let alone 'the poor'. Last - and this error is very forgiveable considering the complexity and change in the insurance biz, most annuity companies are moving to a cash/surrender value on their life annuities. Some are even offering a gurantted income without annuitization. I suspet this is in preparation for the eventual SSI privatization and also to accomodate more sophisticated investors. Lastly, what is so wrong with an insurance company, or anybody else, making a profit for a job well done? Id rather support a company and it's employees and shareholders than a government beurocracy any day.



One of two things will happen: Either Social Security will stop providing even the substandard baseline it currently provides, or there will be no "real wealth" generated (except among those wealthy enough not to rely on Social Security). Zero is no better than zero. The only people drawing "real wealth" out of this carveout plan would be those who are already wealthy. This is not a program for Johnny Punchcard and Janey Lunchpail.


Brave, but unsubstantiated and quite erroneous assumption. The only people who benefit from leaving the current system alone are the tax-and-spend beurocrats and the politicians who want to dodge the problem. The citizens are left with a confiscatory tax and a marginal resulting benefit - Rich or poor, they all end up being Benjamin Dover.

$10,000 is probably a good average.

The average is $1,008 a month for retired males, $775 for females. $10,000 is generally accepted as a good annual average

Also, where do you get a presumption of a 32% cut?

This presumption is based on a 4% carveout representing 32% of the 12.4% payroll tax. Most of the analysis I've seen project that the cut in guaranteed benefits will exceed the amount cut from payroll tax (hence the argument that the private accounts will need to perform better in order to make up the difference)

Here's the cite from the center on budget and policy priorities (p. 2): http://www.cbpp.org/2-3-05socsec2.pdf

I know the 32% is ballpark, but if anything, it errs on behalf of the privatizers.

It was never intended to completely replace earned income or a 'living wage'.

I'm in agreement. It is social insurance and should be treated as such. We've already got 401 plans and IRAs available for retirement funds. But if we start chopping up the SSA, we jeopardize the safety net function as well as survivors and disability programs. If these programs were to be incorporated into privatized accounts, they'd eat into the profit percentages there, just as they do with the SSA.

Second, where do you determine that the govt willrequire annuitization for anyone, let alone 'the poor'.

I don't determine this. I give two options: 1) Either the government will butt out or 2) they'll make some effort to preserve the "safety net." The easiest way of doing this is through annuitization. I don't know whether they'll require it for any or all private accounts. I was outlining the two possibilities to show that it is unlikely that we can have it both ways. If there is no legislation about tapping the private accounts, the "safety net" function is gimped; if the "safety net" is preserved (I see annuitization being the most likely method for this, if you have another view, let's hear it), the "heiritable wealth" function is gimped. That's all I'm saying. I'm not making a prediction one way or the other, I'm just saying that there don't seem to be many other alternatives.

Lastly, what is so wrong with an insurance company, or anybody else, making a profit for a job well done? Id rather support a company and it's employees and shareholders than a government beurocracy any day.

The problem arises when that profit is taken from the nest egg. Everyone is pushing how inexpensive the private accounts will be, but then we get more and more companies wetting their beaks: First the investment firms, then the insurers. The likely return on the private accounts, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will be somewhere around 5% (the 14% estimates circulated by pro-privatizers are pure stock portfolios, the CBO uses more realistic sample holdings that include real estate and bonds). Deduct from that the 3% required to keep pace with the CBPP estimate above for reduced guaranteed benefits; deduct from that the investors' fees; deduct from that the insurers' fees and all of a sudden the SSA's 1-2% return above inflation starts looking good. More to the point, this is without calculating how we'd handle survivors and disability benefits under the carveout. Or the increased debtload generated by covering benefits with a 32% reduction in funds coming into the system (again, a 4% payroll tax would be diverted, meaning the SSA tax would be reduced to 8.4% of payroll rather than 12.4%).

Brave, but unsubstantiated and quite erroneous assumption. The only people who benefit from leaving the current system alone are the tax-and-spend beurocrats and the politicians who want to dodge the problem.

I think this is wrong on many counts: The privatization scheme gives the tax-and-spend bureaucrats the ultimate out. It gives them the opportunity to default on the $1.7 trillion they owe taxpayers on bonds in the SSA Trust. The crisis here is not that social security is about to collapse, but that in 2017-2018, the federal govt. will be required to redeem 200 billion in bonds. This will force a crisis caused by irresponsible spending of moneys that should have been dedicated to the SSA.

There is not an immediate problem with the SSA, this is a problem with the government being unable to cover the checks it has written.

More important are the people who would be hurt by going to privatization: Until we see something out of the PCSS accounting for the survivors and disability insurance currently provided by OASDI, it's only half a proposal.

I plan to post a reply, and also start a related thread for a part of it, since it will likely lead to a discussion all it's own. But right now I am tired. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

well, I started the new thread, took alot longer than I thought to edit it all down. I'll be back later to post here.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=407736

The government should not run a program. Which takes your hard earned money. Without your consent.
Oh? So the 16th amendment is obsolete? So the 2nd amendment is obsolete? No well-regulated militia?

Oh? So the 16th amendment is obsolete? So the 2nd amendment is obsolete? No well-regulated militia?

Can make a case that the ARMY NATIONAL GUARD is a well regulated militia since it is controled by the state and not the feds unless activated.

As for the 16th, I think it needs to go personally but all it does is authorize income taxes.

Can make a case that the ARMY NATIONAL GUARD is a well regulated militia since it is controled by the state and not the feds unless activated.

Why that isn't true has been covered in the 17 gun control threads on NS in the past year. :)