SteamJet

I don't know why you say it's "good for the country" when it's not paying for itself and as Jungle and others have pointed out SSs unfunded liability is astronomical. I think you are confusing a good idea/good intentions with good results.

In my opinion, the federal government should never have gotten into the "safety net" business. It has been a slippery slope where good intentions have done more harm than good. By the way, where in the Constitution is this spelled out as a role of government in this country anway? Please tell me you have something better than the "general welfare" clause. . .

There are far too many people on the dole today. For many, it has become a way of life to live off the work of their fellow citizens. For many, there is little incentive to stop eating the fruits of their neighbor's labor. There is an active cadre of panhandlers in my town. Mostly the same people, same places, everyday. It's their "job" if you will. Why do they do it? I'm convinced for the vast majority it's because people are foolish enough to give them money. If people stopped giving them money, they'd be force to do something else: work.

Not that it's anyone's business, but lest ye think me to be a scrooge, I donate a significant % of my income and time to my church and other NON-government charitible organizations. In fact, I'm certain on a % basis, I'm in the top 10 percentile of givers. I certainly do better than the annointed one and his vice, not that that's anyone's business either. I believe charity should be voluntary and not the province of government where it becomes mandatory through taxation. I'm all in favor of taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves. However, not a plug nickel to those who won't take care of themselves.

FighterHayabusa

Don't forget that you STILL have to fund the retirement benefits of everyone on SS now. There's no investment account, grandpa takes almost all of that dollar you me and jungle put in as soon as it leaves our paycheck.

This is why a big portion of Bush's partial privatization plan was borrowing a bunch of money to pay the shortfall that would be caused if you and I started a mandatory 401k account - the shortage caused immediately from going from a pay as you go pension to a defined benefit pension. This borrowing portion tipped his hand in my opinion. Why is it ok to borrow now and not later for a slightly modified version of SS?

The proposal included rules that kept people from investing in single stocks, limiting you to a few index funds with very low expense ratios which would then be converted to an annuity at retirement age which would have probably would have amounted to more than Social Security. It was all a little too complex for the average joe and easily propagandized by the then scaremonger "party of no".

I didn't really have a problem with it actually, but not because I bought the BS that SS was about to collapse under its own weight.

ppilot

Well, the 'general welfare' clause was pretty much the basis for my whole opinion.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United State

I'm not a constitutional scholar or anything, but it's pretty clear to me, and it was pretty clear (7-2) to the Supreme Court as well.

I salute you for making giving important in your life. I have too, and I'm convinced that every dollar I've given has come back to me. But there's a problem with giving too. I give to the causes that I support. As do you, I'm sure. But this leads to a 'tyranny of the majority' situation. You say you give a significant percentage to your church, which I'm sure is what most people do as well. This doesn't benefit non-churchgoers at all. Or suppose I decide to do all of my charitable giving to PETA. This doesn't benefit needy PEOPLE at all.

And this is all fine and good. People should be able to give to what they want to give, because it's not THEIR JOB to take care of the citizens of the country, and it's not THEIR JOB to stabilize society. It's the government's job. And I'm sorry, but no system of voluntary giving will ever be able to replace that.

SteamJet

SS would collapse under its own weight in short order if the government couldn't rob Peter to pay Paul, print money or increase taxes. Instead it will merely be one of several social welfare programs that together will eventually bankrupt the country.

Although I'm a frequent critic of government social welfare programs, I realize it would be impractical or even immoral to end them overnight. Instead, we need to find ways to wean us off them over time. I wish I had the answers, but I don't. What I do know is this: I don't want any of them expanded and I don't want any new ones including ObamaCare or whatever it's called. Call me a "scaremonger" or whatever, but if healthcare "reform" goes down like they would like it to, it will be the straw that breaks this country's back in more than one way.

On a related note, I was just reading the Constitution and the Declaration this evening and I couldn't find anywhere where it talked about "healthcare" being a right or role of government. Did they slip a new amendment in there when I wasn't looking? When exactly did "healthcare" become a right? If healthcare is now a right, can we make happiness a right too? Can we make it a right for all pilots to make wide-body capt pay too?

ppilot

What is your basis for believing this?

SteamJet

What 7-2 supreme court decision are you refering to?

If all your eggs are in the general welfare clause basket, what exactly constitutes the "general welfare of the United States"? Does it mean some citizens are entitled to live off the labor of others? If so, who, under what circumstances and to what extent? Just when did this "right" become effective? Were the politicians a hundred years ago just more "stingy" than those today? Where does the general welfare clause end? When we come to the point where "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need" is the law of the land?

You are dead wrong when you say giving to churches does not benefit non-church goers. Most churches I know do not restrict their giving to church-goers.

If you want to give all your money to PETA or whatever, fine with me. You are free to do so. I have NO RIGHT to dicate to you what you do with the fruit of YOUR labor and you have NO RIGHT to dictate what I do with MINE.

We used to have a saying in the US of A: "it's a FREE country" Sadly, that is being threatened by those who wish to exercise dominion over their fellow citizens through extra-constitutional taxation, instrusive, burdensome regulation and the naivete of its ever-growing population of well-meaning, but sadly misguided do-gooders.

You say you're not a Constitutional scholar. May I suggest a good book for you to read? Liberty and Tyrrany by Mark Levin. Maybe the most important book you'll ever read.

SteamJet

Have you read the earlier posts by Jungle in this thread? Have you not read the projections by the CBO and others? Game over in 2037 unless benefits are cut or taxes are raised (or we go to advanced shell game shennanigans ala robbing Peter to Pay paul or print more "IOUs" for the SS "lock box" and further increase the debt). Even Obama doesn't dispute this. That's saying something.

jungle

Did you look at that article on unfunded liabilities? Regardless of what one may believe with regard to welfare expenditures, the real question is can we sustain the current path into the near term future. All evidence indicates that we cannot. The path must be altered, that is very clear and not really a point of contention.

----------------------------------------------------


This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Justice Story's construction, holding the power to tax and spend is an independent power; that is, the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare. The Court wrote:

“ [T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Spending, for whatever purpose, has limits-not those limits placed by a court, but limits placed by the hard reality of economics. At some point, the right to an individual's property(time, money, life) has to be considered in the total equation.

ppilot

Helvering v. Davis is the 7-2 decision to which I was referring. And your questions about 'what exactly constitutes the "general welfare of the United States"?' and 'under what circumstances and to what extent? Just when did this "right" become effective?' are addressed therein. You and I are just going to disagree. I think you are wrong, and your referral of Mark Levin cements that for me, because he is, in my opinion, a Grade A Nutbar. I'm not dictating what you do with the 'fruit of your labor', and I'm not a 'do-gooder' (but thanks for the label).

Your point about churches is well taken. I was wrong to say that giving to churches doesn't benefit non church-goers 'at all'. But I do think that the great majority of monies given to churches goes to the churches congregation (as it should).

I just honestly hope you don't get what you want, because I truly believe if you were to get it, you wouldn't like it.

ppilot

Well, again, we disagree. The projections of CBO have used very conservative figures for economic growth and immigration. Also, as has been said before, a (very slight) raising of the age at which benefits are collected, as well as possibly raising the wage cap closes the gap for like, 50 years. And I'm sorry, we can't plan farther ahead than that. We really have no idea what things will be like in 50 years.