You mean the Article 1 Section 8 that says:
Social Security fits all of those definitions:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes
, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense AND GENERAL WELFARE of the United states
; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:"
--US Constitution, Article 1/Section 8 (emphasis mine)
-) It's collected via funding from the payroll tax ("Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes");
-) It provides for the general welfare of any US citizen who is of retirement age ("Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes to...provide for the...general welfare of the United States");
-) It's a federal law, and thus uniform throughout the entire US ("all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States")
The public record suggests otherwise.
And I am sure that with a cursory look I could find a number of douchebags who think 9/11 was an inside job, that Obama is a Kenyan, that we never landed on the moon, etc. but that isn't representative of the majority of people, let alone, those in the south.
It's not a matter of faith, it's about listening to what people say they want and watching how they act when given the chance, and making a judgment of how people will act in the future based on how they have acted in the past.
I have more faith in people than you apparently.
You can, however, acknowledge that a debt is there, and so in practice the SS program is actually the most efficiently-run program in the country. If people would stop stealing from it.
I cant count what is no longer there.
What you're saying is no different than if you had managed to save $500 over a year, and then I broke into your savings account and stole all of your savings, and then someone else accused you of being "bad at managing money," while asserting that I have a right to keep what I stole from you.
That's only a problem if you believe that we should not honor our debts. And, oh look! It's that pesky Constitution again, saying that the United States is Constitutionally bound to honor all national debts:
Again, that money is gone.
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
" --US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 4
First off, how is another discussion; what's important is that we agree that the debt should be honored. And the Constitution clearly states that it must be.
How do we do that? I am all for honoring all of our debts, but how? What would your budget proposals be? All your programs are already costing more than can be paid for without borrowing.
That said....during a time of economic crisis, government spending should be expanded until the private sector stabilizes and the middle class is strengthened. During periods of economic stability, it is safer to cut taxes and spending; during periods of economic tribulation, spending is necessary because spending drives the economy --- history has shown that tax cuts do not spur job growth, while direct government investment does (big shock, I know). Remember, at the end of Clinton's second term (during which we had a relatively progressive tax policy), we were actually operating in a surplus, not a deficit. That's the first step; you have to balance the budget to repay the debt. And this article from several years back demonstrates exactly how positive the projections for the economy were, before Bush blew the entire surplus on unsustainable tax cuts which he insisted could be covered by the surplus, and instead ate up so much of our budget that they're threatening to cut SS, which doesn't even affect the deficit.
The basic problem with libertarian economic philosophy is that it asserts that if we just give all of our extra money to the richest American business owners, we can trust them to "do the right thing" and enact the perfect business model that will, someday down the road, make things better for all of us. However, those of us who actually pay more in taxes (the middle class) would prefer that our money be invested directly into job creation, so that we can provide a basic living for ourselves --- not funneled into profit machines like Wall Street that are designed solely to take money out of mainstream circulation so that it doesn't benefit the economy at all.
Even Reagan agreed, cutting SS will not reduce the deficit, as the two are unrelated.
Herein lies the real Fiscal Cliff. I'd love to feed and clothe everybody, but the bill comes do someday, and these programs you so heartily defend below, will not allow the servicing of debt (SS included in there). We cannot get away from deficit spending, how the hell do you pay back the debt.p
So you agree that we can do things even if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say we can? I understand enumerated powers, but there is such a thing as an overly-zealous interpretation of those powers. The Bill of Rights is a living document, meaning it can be amended; if Congress has no powers outside of those explicitly named in the Constitution [meaning not in principle, but in terms of specific policy names], then there shouldn't be any more than 10 amendments.
Your right. See, republic-ism works, big fed didn't need to step in and force the states to have police forces, fire departments, hospitals, or even schools. WOW, how the hell did that happen?
Yes, but there are the illusion of profits. Such as, I paid something in and I got more back out of it. In SS, I get back because I paid in, but I don't make money. I just get back what I paid in.
There are no profits in a ponzi scheme. (sorta like SS )
Well let's just sit around and do nothing, then :/
I will start holding my breath
The Congress has a Constitutional right to "take your money." It's called taxation and it's in the Constitution. End of story.
So it's right when 71% of the people want to take my money, but NOT right when a majority (your words) want to be free to associate with who they want?
If you believe it's a "ponzi scheme," why would you be okay with it at any level?
It isn't surprising 71% voted for it, see the Alexander Tyler quote on page 6. And again I only argue that it isn't right at the federal level, state level is a different story.
Then what is it?
You're the one who reduced it to a matter of popular vote. I only pointed out that we've already had that discusion, and the majority agrees that SS is a good thing.
2- again 71% must make it right if YOU agree?
No, I don't have a problem with where you feel their help should come from, actually. I just think there should be a backup plan in the event that someone is old, or doesn't have an extended family/community to take care of them, and has no choice other than to slip into poverty and die homeless or get some help.
3- No, I don't think they be left to die, you just don't like where I feel their help should come from, and you fail to recognize that many could provide for themselves but choose not to.
I wish I could get you to address that point, instead of reading something else into what I'm saying.
Provide some evidence. Where can I go right now and get signed up for SS benefits legally, without committing fraud?
Provide some evidence.
Oh if only it actually worked that way.
That's good, because Social Security is a service the federal government provides. So I guess you're okay with that, then?
My arguments have been only at the federal level, but I am fine with taxes going to pay for the services the federal government is supposed to provide, but not transfer payments.
So retired citizens are deadbeats? Military personnel who have been honorably discharged because of injuries, trauma or retirement are deadbeats? The physically disabled are deadbeats? I have to say I disagree.
It is no service to me, to take my money, and give it to some dead beat, who can work, but chooses not to.
That's your problem, is your entire view is predicated on a fundamental ideological misrepresentation of what SS stands for. It's not for "expecting others to do what I can do for myself." It's a matter of having a public option to save for my retirement, which I can then use when I retire in the event that I don't have wealthy relatives to help support me.
Unlike much of society, I find it immoral to expect from others (be it through taxes or otherwise) what I can do for myself.
It seems that if you could somehow get past your uninformed snap judgments about people you don't know, then you would actually not have much of a problem with Social Security.
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."