“The fact people voted to have others take care of them doesn’t mean it’s constitutional, or right for government to go ahead and do it anyway. If citizens vote for the idiotic on unconstitutional, the reps and senators who have taken an oath the uphold the constitution are supposed to be the check on the idiocy and say no. That was a built-in check to mob rule. There are many times a politician should vote the way of their constituents but there are times when they cannot and say they’ve done the right thing.
We’ve hardly corrected anything if someone such as yourself sits there and asks the question you did, and meant it in all seriousness. If government is now tasked to take care of the individual, why don’t they pay my car payment? Why don’t they pay my electric bill? My mortgage? I have a few trips I’d like to take, can I just send the bill to Uncle Sugar? If they have a moral obligation, and I can make a moral claim to the money they take in from other citizens, why can’t I just have them pay for anything I determine necessary for my health or well-being?
After all, according to you, they are now tasked with taking care of me. If they have to take care of my retirement, I’ll retire right now and forward all my bills to the government.”
You do know that almost all of the New Deal was challenged in the courts by the Republicans and many components, most notably the National Recovery Administration, were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and were ceased? There were many things in the New Deal that FDR and the democrats tried to ram down the throats of the people and were stopped by the courts at Republica urging.
The surviving parts such as Social Security have been subjected to constitutional challenges in the decades since and have been upheld as constitutional. So the built-in checks to mob rule about which you spoke did indeed work and still do.
The remainder of your comment is nonsensical and is almost a litany of Non sequiturs to my argument that if there is a desire of people and the representatives concur, or vice versa, it can become law, subject to constitutional review if challenged.
No one said anything about taking “total” care of just any individual. Only under certain circumstances such as death of a spouse, permanent disability or serious illness, etc is some help granted, certainly not total middle class level help. And SS at 62 or 65 isn’t just a free “taking care of”, it is a service for which one pays.
Now if you really want yours and all car payments covered collectively by the people as a social benefit, then you can start a movement, run for office and lobby for it. We actually do have a system where you can make a go of it and see what happens. If you can get a majority to agree, your car payment and all others will be covered collectively.
The act does not make the action legal.