Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
That's still not the government's job. Social security is unconstitutional. Sorry, but that's the truth. Yes, I feel badly about the senior citizens who depend on it, but one way or another, Social Security must be ended one day. Hopefully we can do a slow phasing-out so as not to hurt too many people.
Point. About 1/6 of the U.S. population works for the government, I think. But really, if they were not working for the government, they would probably be working for private industries doing exactly the same thing. If they are performing jobs needed by society, they would still be employed. (Of course, if millions of people were suddenly fired by the government, it would take quite a while to work out.)
Defense GDP percentage
I would suggest that our education system (K-12) sucks because of cultural differences. It has become "cool" to fail nowadays, whereas in, say, Japan, success in school is very important.
DC has some of the largerst per student spending, yet more than its fair share of failed schools.
It is more than just money involved here.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Could you explain why it's unconstitutional?
charrison: Where does it say in the constitution that the goverment is required to provide retirement services for the population?
[/quote]
How does that make it unconstitutional? Just because something is not in the constitution, that doesn't make it unconstitutional. I don't believe the consitution says you cannot steal, rape, or pretty much any other crime, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional to make laws against doing those things. The government may not be obligated by the constitution to provide retirement benefits, but it can if it wants to. A large percentage of that money is money that the senior citizens paid to social security over the years anyway (obviously they end up receiving more in benefits because people live a lot longer now though). For some people it would probably be more beneficial to allow them to invest that money on their own, but allowing that would hurt the people who need it the most - the poor. A poor person isn't going to want to invest that 6.4% of their income, they're going to want to spend it.
Yeah, what that money is spent on is a big factor as well. As is the perception by poor students that they will not be able to overcome their poverty no matter how much effort they put into it, so it is not worth trying.
I really think your 15% budget cut would do more harm than good. Like others have said, government spending helps get us out of a recession. Open up a history book and read about the Great Depression to find out all about it.
United States Constitution, Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This means that if the federal government is not expressly given a power by the Constitution, it cannot do it. Unfortunately, this amendment is pretty much ignored today.
I think you're confusing the federal and local governments when you talk about laws against murder, theft, etc. Local governments can make such laws. But there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says I must be part of a fradulent Ponzi scheme (Social Security).
When citing the Great Depression, you should also read about how government actions drove the country further into depression and made it much longer than it might have been if they'd have left things alone.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This means that if the federal government is not expressly given a power by the Constitution, it cannot do it. Unfortunately, this amendment is pretty much ignored today.
I think you're confusing the federal and local governments when you talk about laws against murder, theft, etc. Local governments can make such laws. But there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says I must be part of a fradulent Ponzi scheme (Social Security).
When citing the Great Depression, you should also read about how government actions drove the country further into depression and made it much longer than it might have been if they'd have left things alone.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
1. Amendment XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Social security is a tax, they just happen to return the money to you when you get old.
2. You are correct, that ammendment has been ignored since the Great Depression. It is a relic of a time when the United States was a relatively loose coalition of states. I think most people would prefer the unified nation we live in today.
The federal government has laws against those things as well. Timothy McVeigh was convicted of murder in a federal court. And certainly you've heard of the RICO statutes. Or mail fraud. What is your suggestion for replacing Social Security? At very least it would need to be continued for a decade or so after they stop taxing for it, because you can't just yank people's retirement out from under them. What would happen to all of the poor people who are unable to save enough for retirement? I suppose they would have to work full-time until they die? I hope for their sake they don't have any serious medical problems. I assume you have the same objection to welfare?
Getting back to the topic at hand, you can't just cut the federal budget 15% in a year, it would have to be gradual. And as much as people say they want federal budget cuts, they won't be very supportive of the president when it starts to affect them. Teachers will be pissed when the department of education gets cuts, farmers will be pissed when the department of agriculture gets cuts, countless people will be pissed if anyone ever manages to cut defense spending.
The Federal government can only do things specifically authorized in the Constitution, Social Security isn't one of them!
The budget was 2.2 trillion, with 350B defecit.
10% 220Billion
15% 330Billion
It looks like you are the one using new math.
Social security is a payroll tax, not an income tax. Payroll taxes are not authorized.
I guess the idea that the government should follow its own laws is a relic, too.
Yes. What he did was terrible, but the federal government is not authorized to prosecute people for murder. The U.S. Constitution delegates that responsibility to the states.
I'm not going to go into how to replace Social Security; that's a topic for another thread. I admit that it wouldn't be easy. And yes, I do have a problem with welfare. If people are in dire need, there are plenty of charities (and there would be more if not for welfare) and Americans are the most giving people in the world (and they would be more giving if not for welfare).
You can't do massive, yet graudal cuts. The next Congress would just undo everything. Cuts must be made quickly. Again, not easy, but that's how it would have to happen in order to be sucessful.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
It's both. It is a 6.4 or 6.2 (somewhere in that vicinity) tax on your income, and an equivalent tax on your employer's payroll.
It's not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so. You're welcome to try to get it overturned.
Honestly, do you really think that we'd be better off if the federal government's responsibilities were redistributed to the states? Seems to me like that would be even LESS efficient and would lead to a good deal of inconsistency between states. Unless you honestly think the power should lie in the hands of the states, your 10th amendment argument is irrelevant.I believe the fact that the crime was committed on U.S. government property is what gave the federal government jurisdiction. Again, the Supreme Court has obviously not ruled that it is unconstitutional. Perhaps that is because the states are fine with the way it is?
I think a better idea would be to "privatize" the welfare system by reducing funding for welfare and giving the money to charities. The main problem with that is a large number of those charities are religious organizations... As for social security... I agree with you that it is a bad program and that it doesn't work very well for various reasons (not the least of which being our increased longevity... darn medical science!). But eliminating it in one fell swoop, or even an immediate 15% budget cut like charrison was saying, would leave many seniors destitute. My grandparents are poor enough as it is, they don't need to have their legs cut out from under them. A better alternative is to take the money you pay in to social security and put it into an individual retirement account which you could manage (or have the government manage for you). That would force the poor to save for retirement, and it would be fair.
So you just eliminate 15% of the budget, costing who knows how many people their jobs, adding to unemployment, which would do wonderful things for our economy... A blind 15% budget cut would be irresponsible; finding specific wasteful spending and eliminating it is more responsible. Unfortunately wasteful spending is precisely how congressmen get re-elected. Finding ways for government agencies to work more EFFICIENTLY would be nice.
It's 7.15% for both you and your employer; 15.3% total. And no, it's not an income tax. For example, income tax is waived if you make below a certain amount, but everyone always pays SS.
Oh, yeah, right. Part of the problem in government is that each branch does favors for the others. It doesn't take a Supreme Court ruling to render something unconstitutional. The Constitution is a simple document - it means what it says, and anything that doesn't agree with it is unconstitutional.
Yes, I do think leaving things for the states would be better. Better to have the different ways of approaching things, and if you didn't like what one state did, you could move. Better than having just one government screwing up ALL the states.
My 10th AMENDMENT argument is not irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you or I think a part of the Constitution is "necessary"; it just matters that it exists.
I agree. I think that's what I said. I also agree that it would be difficult to end SS without hurting people, but we have to face the music someday. The longer we wait, the worse we will hurt people.
Forget constitutional or unconstitutional - a principle doesn't have to be in a document to make it correct.
IMHO, the sole purpose of the government is to defend the freedom of each individual in a country. Now, some taxes are
used to purchase public goods - upkeep of the roads, national defense, etc etc. Things that benefit all, and that all actually want.
Social Security, welfare, and many other government programs A) do not benefit all (yes, true all old people get money with SS, but many would be
much better off just not paying the SS taxes and keeping that mony) and B) people do not want to pay them.
Forcing someone to pay for something they don't want, though maybe not defined in the constitution, seems like a limitation on freedom to me. Liberals don't want to
pay for national defense, conservatives don't want to pay for welfare (and obviously there are more things that each don't want to pay for). Forcing them to pay for what they don't want, through taxes, is, IMHO, just plain wrong. Cutting taxes so that people don't have to pay for what they don't want, or reforming government so that an individuals funds go only to the programs they support (and in the quantities they want) is something that is needed to give Americans the basic freedoms that they SHOULD have.
Anyways, that's just my two cents. I'm not a big fan of big government.
Jim
IMHO, the sole purpose of the government is to defend the freedom of each individual in a country. Now, some taxes are
used to purchase public goods - upkeep of the roads, national defense, etc etc. Things that benefit all, and that all actually want.
Social Security, welfare, and many other government programs A) do not benefit all (yes, true all old people get money with SS, but many would be
much better off just not paying the SS taxes and keeping that mony) and B) people do not want to pay them.
Forcing someone to pay for something they don't want, though maybe not defined in the constitution, seems like a limitation on freedom to me. Liberals don't want to
pay for national defense, conservatives don't want to pay for welfare (and obviously there are more things that each don't want to pay for). Forcing them to pay for what they don't want, through taxes, is, IMHO, just plain wrong. Cutting taxes so that people don't have to pay for what they don't want, or reforming government so that an individuals funds go only to the programs they support (and in the quantities they want) is something that is needed to give Americans the basic freedoms that they SHOULD have.
Anyways, that's just my two cents. I'm not a big fan of big government.
Jim
Hear, hear, neoprofile! I think it was one of the founding fathers who said, making someone pay for something they think is immoral is, in itself, immoral.
One more thought for mugsywwiii: If you think we can ignore the 10th Amendment because (in your mind) it's irrelevant, what's to keep "The Man" from ignoring the other amendments? Basically, you are arguing that "it's legal because we say it is" and "you have only the rights which we deem necessary to give you."
One more thought for mugsywwiii: If you think we can ignore the 10th Amendment because (in your mind) it's irrelevant, what's to keep "The Man" from ignoring the other amendments? Basically, you are arguing that "it's legal because we say it is" and "you have only the rights which we deem necessary to give you."
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Yeah, so it changes. Why don't you nit-pick a little? You know I had the right idea.
Where in the constitutional amendment does it say that income tax has to be waived if you make below a certain amount? Social security IS a tax on your income which IS allowed by the constitution.
The supreme court is the final authority on the constitution. The INTERPRETATION of the constitution is their responsibility. In this century the supreme court has interpreted it rather loosly and given a lot more power to the federal government. If the constitution was the final authority on everything, there would never be a case where it would be appropriate to cite legal precedent.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Thank you!
The problem is though, if you don't do something to try to give the poor a leg up, then they'll always be poor, and their kids will always be poor, and their grandkids will always be poor... I think as human beings we have a responsibility to lend a helping hand to the poor. Not to support them for their entire lives. When I was in high school, I worked at a convenience store across the street from a government housing project. The way those people CHOSE to live disgusted me. They didn't work, they lived off the fat of the land, they wasted their money on cigarettes and drugs when their kids were going hungry... those people don't deserve to be able to live like that off the government. But there are people who are poor and who want to work hard but who just can't get a break. Is it right to just roll up the windows up your Volvo and drive on by?
The best way to help the poor is a uniform system of competent education and healthcare. Trillions have been wasted in a multitude of government programs which gives not only credence but irrefutable proof that government has great aptitude at wasting the people's money. BUT . . . that does not preclude intelligent systems of social support. It also does not preclude holding ALL government agencies accountable . . . hello Rummy?!
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Right, but as you can see - our gov't doesn't have "intelligent systems of social support", nor does it have effective accountability safegaurds. The place to start is the accountability - then we could mold existing social support systems to conform to the safeguards or just create a new system that has built in safegaurds.
Now how do we get politicians to st@b special interests in the back and/or quit taking their money?
CkG
Well if the FCC mandated free TV and radio time for all candidates that meet some minimal requirement then politicians would not have a single legitimate reason to perpetually canvas for cash. Most television and radio is garbage anyway and the airwaves are a public property . . . regardless of what Powell the Lesser or Murdoch the Angry Aussie have to say.
You do not start with accountability before instituting appropriate systems of social support. You start with priorities and a plan of action. Unvaccinated, uneducated children is NOT something you leave to a focus group or the Cato Institute. We have ample evidence on what works and what does not per the Institute of Medicine and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. The feds are good at providing a clearinghouse for information and hypothetically providing a simple template that every state can subsequently modify to meet its needs . . . not to mention monetary assistance b/c CA and NY often have greater means than AK and MS.
As for education, the K-12 model has changed relatively little since its inception. It was NOT designed to educate the next generation of doctors, lawyers, teachers, and programmers. It's a patchwork of philosophies which has become a modified daycare. If you have determination and/or parents of means you are essentially guaranteed access to higher education. But only our assbackwards society allows the lack of drive (or supportive parents) to be a legitimate excuse to allow children to fail. Much like healthcare, the government's role should be providing WELL researched information on what works and what doesn't, assisting in the development of modular templates, AND providing funding SUFFICIENT to make success reasonably attainable.
Accountability is primarily with the state NOT the feds. But government agencies like DOD, DOJ should be fully accountable for budgets and activities . . . guess what they are not. Few voices from Congress and NONE from the Executive are asking pointed questions about how taxpayer money is wasted in DC. Until REAL leaders are elected AND supported we will continue to get the government we deserve . . . ala Clinton Chronicles and Bush BS. It is beyond hypocrisy for Bush et al to decry irresponsible state budget management while the federal government piles up deficits with not only no plan for how to reduce them but minimal planning for how to address long term domestic needs. The day Bush publicly chastises Rumsfeld for unrealistic expectations for a sustainable DOD budget or lack of accounting for $1T in taxpayer money is the day Bush becomes a real leader. To date, he's just another pol with a plan for re-election but nothing . . . good . . . for the country.
You do not start with accountability before instituting appropriate systems of social support. You start with priorities and a plan of action. Unvaccinated, uneducated children is NOT something you leave to a focus group or the Cato Institute. We have ample evidence on what works and what does not per the Institute of Medicine and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. The feds are good at providing a clearinghouse for information and hypothetically providing a simple template that every state can subsequently modify to meet its needs . . . not to mention monetary assistance b/c CA and NY often have greater means than AK and MS.
As for education, the K-12 model has changed relatively little since its inception. It was NOT designed to educate the next generation of doctors, lawyers, teachers, and programmers. It's a patchwork of philosophies which has become a modified daycare. If you have determination and/or parents of means you are essentially guaranteed access to higher education. But only our assbackwards society allows the lack of drive (or supportive parents) to be a legitimate excuse to allow children to fail. Much like healthcare, the government's role should be providing WELL researched information on what works and what doesn't, assisting in the development of modular templates, AND providing funding SUFFICIENT to make success reasonably attainable.
Accountability is primarily with the state NOT the feds. But government agencies like DOD, DOJ should be fully accountable for budgets and activities . . . guess what they are not. Few voices from Congress and NONE from the Executive are asking pointed questions about how taxpayer money is wasted in DC. Until REAL leaders are elected AND supported we will continue to get the government we deserve . . . ala Clinton Chronicles and Bush BS. It is beyond hypocrisy for Bush et al to decry irresponsible state budget management while the federal government piles up deficits with not only no plan for how to reduce them but minimal planning for how to address long term domestic needs. The day Bush publicly chastises Rumsfeld for unrealistic expectations for a sustainable DOD budget or lack of accounting for $1T in taxpayer money is the day Bush becomes a real leader. To date, he's just another pol with a plan for re-election but nothing . . . good . . . for the country.
It hasn't changed in quite a while; you could have bothered to check. If you're going to site statistics, you should be sure they're correct. I've corrected you a number of times in this thread, leading me to believe you tend not to do proper research before forming an opinion.
Amendment 16 does not say that any income tax at all has to be levied. It just says that Congress has the power to do so.
By your logic, EVERY tax is a tax on income. Hmm, let's see... sales tax... you pay that tax on money you received as INCOME, so it's an income tax.
I'm going to try not to reply to this thread anymore. It seems as though you're getting offended at me using truth and logic to show the errors in your thoughts. It is not my intention to come across as insulting or condescending, but you really need to learn something about Constitutional law before you go claiming things that just aren't true.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter