It ain’t gonna happen anytime soon so in the meantime maybe we should call for cuts in a thousand other less politically sensitive things.
After all, $100 million for a freakin aquarium in Brazil? Jets to Egypt?
I’m lost as to the humor here as SS IS unconstitutional, and is a Ponzi scheme.
Do we get all of our forced contributions back?
I realize the progressive solution would be to require whites to pay more but that would be the open door for a constitutional challenge based on equal protection.
As many business experts who appear on Melissa Francis and Gerri Willis shows on Fox Business channel have said, numerous times, the Social Security system is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.....
We should? Who’s we and how will those “we” go about it? Mastrurbation.
The idea of reforming SoSecurity has been around for something like 30 years, since Reagan. At least. The same as the idea for reforming the tax code. What’s happened? Yopu’ve been voting the same losers to Congress every two years since then, who do nothing about it, not a single thing.
Anyone who’s worked for a good size corporation will tell you how the company adjusts, improves their 401K program every year. I recall that at one point I had at least a dozen investment choices which I could adjust at any time with full control over my money. Why couldn’t Social Security be managed in the same way? Because it’s government, it’s elections, it’s bribes in Washington, lobbies, corruption, it’s low info voters.
Social security is nothing more than the Federal financial imprisonment of the elderly. At retirement, you are no longer free. This alone makes it unconstitutional.
A foreign journalist I spoke to told me he thought that our system is so immune/resistant to reform (taxes, Social Security, War on Poverty) because it is a two party political system, whereas multiple party systems tend to be more dynamic, more open to ideas. It made sense. Why can corporations that I mentioned above can alter and improve their employees 401K systems all the time and at will? Because they are in effect dictatorships, and not democracies such as our dear country (go ahead, educate everyone that we are a republic and not a democracy!) A dictatorship once in a while could perhaps take out the trash, as it often does in South America and elsewhere. But, horror, how can anyone suggest that?! Well, that’s as likely as the suggestion at the top of this thread. We should, yeah, we should!
“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
— James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution