Skip to comments.Why is the Constitution so baffling? Look down.
Posted on 03/30/2011 6:28:27 PM PDT by HMS Surprise
The Tea Party is faced with a conundrum. If Congress cant force Americans to buy health insurance, how can Congress force Americans to buy a retirement plan?
I havent come across a good answer for that question, and Ive been looking, trust me.
The reason nothing has bubbled up seems clear enough: There is no good argument that allows for the one, and not the other.
Why is this cognitive dissonance allowed to go unchallenged? Probably because unlike the standard catch-phrases of freedom movements such as, habeus corpus, freedom to assemble, freedom of speech, etc., the real reason for the political enigma hides like a whale under our feet while we are fishing for minnows
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
It’s simple, Leave all the rules on collecting social Security funds the same. Just give the person contributing a choice of where he would like his money to go (either traditional Social security or 401k).Maybe this is a little too simple, but it seems to be plausible.
Soon elections will be meaningless if they’re not already. The most recent example is obama not appealing to the American public for action in libya. politicians now think they only need the governeds approval at election time. The rest of the time they will do what they want.
It’s hard not to conclude that the glory days of the Grand Republic are numbered. I don’t see a vast host of educated voters on the horizon anytime soon.
Social Security is a tax, ObamaCare requires you to buy a commercial product. See the distinction? If ObamaCare was like MediCare, a tax funded mandate, it would not be an issue.
ObamaCare, it seems to me, is worse than the British NHP and the HealthCanada or just about any other nationalized medical plan. We would have been much, much better off just adopting the Canadian system. Instead, we get something much, much worse.
Obviously the ultimate disregard of jurisdiction is the income tax and all of the diseased fruit that comes from this great misadventure.
Yeah, I was waiting for that canard. It’s a distinction without a difference. Obama could have simply imposed a healthcare tax in your universe and you would have slept easy knowing that the Republic was safe? Read the article, then comment again.
Because Social Security is a hole that’s already been dug. It’s much easier to not dig a whole in the first place than to climb out of a deep one you spent decades digging. To get out of social security the gov would have to come up with a whole lot of money it doesn’t have. I’m not even 50, and already 15% of my gross wages over my lifetime would equal a pretty kitty. Yep, 15%, because my employers’ contribution in my name was money that should have been mine. It was taken from me, so either the contract has to be honored or the money has to be returned. Hell, I’ll be extra nice and not even ask for interest.
I tend to agree with Reagan on Social Security, who in 1964 said that “destitution should not follow unemployment on account of old age.”
This doesn’t answer the constitutional question but I see it as a principle worth standing on. Government exists to protect and defend our liberties and when necessary, to care for those who can’t care for themselves. In my view, the best system would be for each state to have it’s own social security system (which would be constitutional) with its benefits being transferrable across state lines, similar to a 401k plan.
You obviously haven’t looked at the ponzi scheme very closely. If you get pennies on the dollar they will be devalued pennies. Get it? Wouldn’t it be better for you (and me; age 48) to take what few productive years we have left and create real wealth that can’t be arbitrarily taken at some future date? I’m just sayin’.
Thanks for standing with the Obamacare crowd, they would say the same thing and have the same “valid” argument that you have. Agree?
What IS a "tax" in your world, anyway?
You'll have to point out the underlined part for me in the Constitution.
I don’t agree. I’m not a bleeding heart. I don’t believe in a nanny state or that someone else should pay for my health care or retirement. I don’t have a problem with my tax money going to care for aging veterans. Why would be different for my other aging fellow citizens.
Help me out. Where is my logic going wrong.
I didn’t say that was in the constitution. It isn’t.
You assume that the feds, or the Staties, are the only generous organizations. Instead, assume that the American People are perfectly capable of helping their fellow man... when they aren’t disabled by the IRS.
Exactly. Social security is a welfare program for the elderly who can't provide for themselves. It's not a retirement plan. That's why it should be means tested like any other welfare program.
I stand corrected, but you did say;
Government exists to protect and defend our liberties and when necessary, to care for those who cant care for themselves.
I disagree with that too.
Yep - I’ve said for quite awhile (I’m 50). “Just keep mine, I’m not going to see it anyway. Just let me keep it for myself from now on.” Im self-employed so the 15% really IS 15% for me. Wasted, down the drain.
That was not my assumption at all. Some things do end up falling to the state, however, burying people if there are no relatives for example. I have no problem with charitable organizations funding elderly homes. I’m well aware of social security’s socialistic intent. My thinking was going in the direction of “how would I solve this problem in a constitutional way, to answer the question.” My thinking may be wrong.
Social Security should be means tested, as long as the government returns every dime it took with the promise of “security.” They shouldn’t just be able to keep what they didn’t earn.
You didn’t read the article that was posted, obviously. There is no “constitutional” way for the feds to tax individuals in the States, to help other individuals in the States, and there is no constitutional provision that reads: The Congress shall have the authority to help old people when no one is looking.
No I didn’t read the article. And you misunderstand my idea on the states. My idea would be for the federal government to get completely out of it, since it is not within their purview. The states however, are fully empowered to enact similar laws, unless prohibited by their individual constitutions.
My point was, that if the people through their tax dollars decided to take care of their elderly, they could institute such a program. The problem you run into is that what if somebody from Wyoming moves to Florida. I was attempting to resolve that issue. It might be better to leave all government out of it completely.
Yes, what you are describing is contract law, and it’s perfectly legitimate as long as you comprehend the adhesive nature of all contract law. People must be free to opt out at any time, or they are by definition slaves. At least the Supreme Court believes that. So, knowing this, why would you want to involve government? Why the impulse to keep the future open to arbitrary force when the people forget... Like we have. Read the article... OMG.
Now that nearly all of our seniors are on welfare (Socisl Security, Medicare), we have a large portion of our population devoted to big government and the Welfare State.
The gubmint is trillions in the hole. There’s nothing to give back. I say get rid of the separate withholding. Just finance the elderly welfare program through the income tax like everything else. And means test it. Shrink the program down to size. Get rid of the mistaken idea that it’s a pension plan. It isn’t. It’s welfare for the infirm.
Antony Jay wrote of Diocletian: "He had seen, nearly 1,700 years ago, the answer to the problem of the huge, overgrown, overstaffed, extravagant, inefficient corporation steadily losing its share of the market: Move all the vital decision-making people and functions to another place, and let the old one cave in. If there is a promising, strong, self-contained subsidiary company to move to, the essentials can survive the disaster."
I believe that something similar may eventually happen here -- a collapse we cannot prevent but might survive. Trouble is, there aren't any promising places to go.
Exactly right. Just try telling the "conservative" seniors on this forum that you want to means test SS. Twist a pig's ear and watch them squeal.
Great tagline, but mine trumps it.
The problem is the govt needs every penny it can get to fund the baby-boomer retirements, so allowing diversion of FICA “contributions” to a 401k is highly unlikely.
Yeah, I share your doom and gloom vision. The people who should have figured it all out by now still cling to misbegotten notions, and the people who want it to cave have the gas pedal. I support Palin for the same reason that McCain did, she might be the serendipitous leader who will save us from our own good intentions. I don’t KNOW that she will, I just KNOW that the others WILL NOT... Yes, I am YELLING!
LOL. Yeah, I've been down that road before.
So far, I've refrained from calling them pigs, but I have suggested that maybe we should assign them to case workers. ;-)
You are forgetting a partition of the country, either by secession or by the countryside and suburbs letting the overgrown, corrupt cities decay away. This latter seems to be already happening in cities like Detroit and Cleveland.
They would have good reason — they entered into a contract with the govt. whereby they would pay into the fund for many years and in return the govt. would provide payments after they retire. To means-test it would be a flagrant violation of that contract. (However, it is kind of means-tested already in the fact that it is now subject to a progressive income tax).
Would you support the contract claim of a food stamp recipient who says that he was told that if he paid his taxes he would receive food stamps if he ever qualified for them?
Does one have the option of NOT paying those taxes?
While I do not agree that Social Security is Constitutional, the Federal court in was blackmailed into finding ti constitutional by means of a very very broad application of the taxing power, and an unlimited application of spending power.
That means to this day the court has maintained that nobody has a right to any money form the Social “Security” system. As far as the court is concerned the money was taxed by Washington for the uses of Washington. The federal Court turns a blind eye to the nature of the money’s uses being unauthorized by the Federal Constitution.
What the Federal goverment is asking you to do with the act of abomination is mandating you buy a private service from a private company. More then that its a service with strong historic and even cultural religious implications.(Even in the Western tradition healthcare has always been tied to religion) This of course is something completely new and wrong on numerous different fronts for the Federal Government Specifically.
Technically if the Federal Government wants to apply the freedom of religion clause of the 1st amendment to the States it should be striking down Massachusetts repressive law.(Again I am against the abomination that is incorporation)
I like it.
I’m not defending either Social Security or ObamaCare, merely pointing out the distinction that courts can make. I am in favor of neither.
Charity exists for this reason. Government exists to protect the populace and to enforce mutually agreed upon law that does not contravene federal or state constitutions.
You obviously don’t live in NJ.
The five MOST misunderstood words in the modern American lexicon, IMHO.
The Founders knew exactly what it meant. They created the federal constitution to act as a Constitution for the District of Columbia just as each state constitution acted for an individual State.
The federal Constitution itself defines jurisdiction :
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) ...............
The Rule of Exclusion applies - that which is not included is therefore excluded
§ 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
The only federal authority that can legitimately act within a state is one that must, by definition, act as a concurrent authority WITH a State. Otherwise, the federal authority negates that which created it...a legal impossibility by the Founders' way of thinking.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
sorry. I’ve been jumping down people’s throats a lot lately. The news puts me on edge.
Good point. "Contracts" are voluntary. We're not dealing with contracts here.
So I assume you agree with the article?
In a nutshell, yes.