Posted on 03/30/2011 6:28:27 PM PDT by HMS Surprise
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.