View Poll Results: Should we Eliminate Social Security

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, no replacement

    18 30.00%
  • Yes, but with a replacement

    11 18.33%
  • No, we should wait until it goes bankrupt

    1 1.67%
  • No, its not going to go bankrupt

    26 43.33%
  • Other

    4 6.67%
Page 31 of 34 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 331

Thread: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

  1. #301
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    There is no such place and i have never said that. How about we just stick to the truth here.
    And yet you want to fiddle with humanity? Why? What is the point if you aren't looking for perfection? Do you enjoy pushing your will?


    Nope, never said that either. There is really no need to lie to try to make your points.
    Oh but you do. Healthcare is a great example my friend.


    Exactly why I support a solution to the root of the problem rather than just the consequences of the problem that the GOP wishes to address.
    But the consequences are related to the cause.

    Yes, i care very much. That is why it is imperative that we address our main problems today - peak oil, the highest health care cost in the world, 30 years of cutting our income, climate change, and paying for undending optional wars through debt and robbing SS funds.
    Oh but you believe in many things that don't exist my friend.

  2. #302
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    We can change our senators every 6 years and presidents every 4 years. How is their power unlimited?
    because it has been declared to be so by those who push a "living constitution" theory that allows the constitution to change meanings to become "whatever we want or find it convenient to be", rather than what the people actually ever agreed to.

    Ignoring the Constitution?
    Reporter: Speaker Pelosi, can you tell us what part of the Constitution you are drawing the authority to force people to purchase health insurance?
    Speaker Pelosi: Are you serious? Are you serious?

    Last week, Ezra Klein, a famously liberal Washington Post blogger, explained to MSNBC host Norah O'Donnell that the "gimmick" of reading the Constitution on the floor was ultimately silly because the Constitution was written "more than 100 years ago" and is, therefore, too confusing for everyone to understand...

    Meanwhile, the GOP's promise to require that every legislation contain a clause citing the constitutional authority for it has sparked a riot of incredulity. A writer for U.S. News & World Report says the idea is "just plain wacky." Last September, Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell declared that "the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation" will be "whether or not it is constitutional." Dahlia Lithwick, Slate magazine's legal editor, responded, "How weird is that, I thought. Isn't it a court's job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn't that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution?"

    Leave aside the fact that it is not solely the job of the courts to determine what is constitutional. Forget that no such thing is provided for in the Constitution. You do have to wonder why senators and representatives bother swearing to "support and defend" the Constitution if that's not part of their job description. Surely, it would strike most citizens as bizarre to suggest that legislators shouldn't worry about whether their proposed legislation is constitutional. If on a field trip the Supreme Court goes off a cliff in a horrible bus accident, does that mean the Constitution goes with it?

    Ever since the Progressive era, American liberals have been deeply troubled by the idea that the Constitution can prevent the government from doing anything the forces of progress desire. The annoying thing is they used to be honest about this. Woodrow Wilson openly expressed his contempt for fidelity to the Constitution, preferring a "living" Constitution that social planners can rewrite at a glance to fit the changing times. After his sinister court-packing scheme failed, FDR openly said we needed to supplant the "inadequate" Bill of Rights with a "second" or "economic Bill of Rights."..

    President Obama writes in The Audacity of Hope that the Constitution is not "static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." On its face, this is not altogether implausible, but in reality what the living-Constitution crowd means is that when push comes to shove, we're going to do what we think is best and figure out the constitutional arguments later, if it all...

    This was clearly the mind-set of the Democrat-controlled 111th Congress. "Are you serious?" was Nancy Pelosi's response to a question over the constitutionality of health care reform. Third-ranking House Democrat Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina famously declared that "there's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." Rep. Phil Hare of Illinois, before he was defeated by a Tea Party-backed candidate, told a town hall meeting, "I don't worry about the Constitution" on health care reform.

    Well, exactly...
    Are you another anarchist who doesn't believe in the rule of law?
    nope. the people cited above are. once the Constitutions' meaning becomes de facto "whatever the guy at the top wants it to mean", then we do not live under rule of law, but rather rule of man.

  3. #303
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,132

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    because it has been declared to be so by those who push a "living constitution" theory that allows the constitution to change meanings to become "whatever we want or find it convenient to be", rather than what the people actually ever agreed to.
    as opposed to those who insist the application of the Constitution should not evolve as our world does
    those of you who would prefer to apply the interpretation of its words as viewed by the citizens of the 1700's instead of how they would apply as observed by the citizens of the 21st century


    Reporter: Speaker Pelosi, can you tell us what part of the Constitution you are drawing the authority to force people to purchase health insurance?

    Speaker Pelosi: Are you serious? Are you serious
    ?
    pelosi was spot on
    no one has been able to show that there is anything in the Constitution to prohibit an equitable assignment of the costs


    nope. the people cited above are. once the Constitutions' meaning becomes de facto "whatever the guy at the top wants it to mean", then we do not live under rule of law, but rather rule of man.
    you intimate that the Constitution should never be subject to revision:

    A1S2:
    Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
    A1S9:
    No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
    A1S1:
    In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
    A3S2:
    The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state
    A4S2:
    No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
    no way were the above modifications of the original Constitution later found to be necessary by the ensuing citizens of our nation to allow that document to evolve as found necessary by we the people [/sarcasm]
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  4. #304
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    We can change our senators every 6 years and presidents every 4 years. How is their power unlimited? Ignoring the Constitution? Are you another anarchist who doesn't believe in the rule of law?
    We don't have the rule of law in this country any more. We are no longer a nation of laws but a nation of men. This country was not meant to be a democracy; power was to be limited by the constitution. That is the unlimited power, and popular control does not change that problem.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  5. #305
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    as opposed to those who insist the application of the Constitution should not evolve as our world does
    those of you who would prefer to apply the interpretation of its words as viewed by the citizens of the 1700's instead of how they would apply as observed by the citizens of the 21st century
    The amendment process was put into place for a reason.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  6. #306
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,132

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    The amendment process was put into place for a reason.
    you are preaching to the converted. tell it to him:
    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    because it has been declared to be so by those who push a "living constitution" theory that allows the constitution to change meanings to become "whatever we want or find it convenient to be", rather than what the people actually ever agreed to.



    Reporter: Speaker Pelosi, can you tell us what part of the Constitution you are drawing the authority to force people to purchase health insurance?
    Speaker Pelosi: Are you serious? Are you serious?





    nope. the people cited above are. once the Constitutions' meaning becomes de facto "whatever the guy at the top wants it to mean", then we do not live under rule of law, but rather rule of man.
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  7. #307
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Yes, like I said I know we get the government we deserve and I make that point all the time, however, as a person like yourself that wants to make the world the perfect place, want people to given everything they need, shouldn't you be more active on fixing this problem? Are you not interested in the short coming of the world? Do you not care?
    where did he say he wants people to be given everything they need? I need the post number.....
    if you can prove he is that liberal, I will smite him with my very best moderate words...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  8. #308
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    And yet you want to fiddle with humanity? Why? What is the point if you aren't looking for perfection? Do you enjoy pushing your will?



    Oh but you do. Healthcare is a great example my friend.




    But the consequences are related to the cause.



    Oh but you believe in many things that don't exist my friend.
    at least he isn't calling you his "liberal, or far left, friend" like some would...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  9. #309
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    We don't have the rule of law in this country any more.
    LOL! See Anarchy then, third door down on the right.
    Last edited by Catawba; 05-03-11 at 06:22 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #310
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Should we Eliminate Social Security?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    And yet you want to fiddle with humanity? Why?
    Please look up the difference between society and humanity and then come back and see me.

    What is the point if you aren't looking for perfection? Do you enjoy pushing your will?
    Nope. Does the term, be the best that we can be, mean anything to you?




    Oh but you do. Healthcare is a great example my friend.
    You are opposed to health care?



    But the consequences are related to the cause.
    In the same way that symptoms are related to the disease. You propose treating the symptoms, I propose treating the disease.



    Oh but you believe in many things that don't exist my friend.

    Such as what?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Page 31 of 34 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •