• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we Eliminate Social Security?

Should we Eliminate Social Security

  • Yes, no replacement

    Votes: 13 25.5%

  • Yes, but with a replacement

    Votes: 11 21.6%

  • No, we should wait until it goes bankrupt

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • No, its not going to go bankrupt

    Votes: 22 43.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 7.8%
  • Total voters
    51
repeter said:
Necessary and Proper Clause-Wiki



Chief Justice Marshall and the Supreme Court already countered your argument against Social Security, and backed up my argument for its continued constitutionality in McCulloch v. Maryland.
Click to expand...


Oh no you have court cases! What will ever do! Btw, that court case proves my point. Can you find out how?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Which provision should I do next?
Click to expand...

If you can find one that says Congress cannot promote the general welfare and all that, I'd appreciate it, because you can clearly see something I can't.
 
repeter said:
If you can find one that says Congress cannot promote the general welfare and all that, I'd appreciate it, because you can clearly see something I can't.
Click to expand...

You do realize that is what I said earlier right? Learn to read or something.
 
Henrin said:
You do realize that is what I said earlier right? Learn to read or something.
Click to expand...

What you did was paraphrase the elastic clause so it said only ennumerated powers are allowed under it, thereby implying only the powers in Article 1, Section 8 are considered as such.

The actual language of the clause is, and I'll quote it again, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
 
Quoted from McCulloch v. Maryland:

If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.

...

If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.
Click to expand...

Now, the second part almost gives you an argument. However, unless you can give a clause that says the Preamble does not count as powers ennumerated to Congress, you have no legitimate argument.
 
repeter said:
If you want to make a point, say it.
Click to expand...

What did Marshall say exactly in his decision? Did he say

A) If a decision comes up and the court has to decide on it that doesn't fit the powers of government this court has to allow it.

B) the opposite.

which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land."
Click to expand...

Yes, its the opposite. I didn't even have to click your link to find it. What is interesting is you missed the point of the definition so badly but ran right into the fire. Why did you act when you didn't understand? Frustration? Bad move.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, its the opposite. I didn't even have to click your link to find it. What is interesting is you missed the point of the definition so badly but ran right into the fire. Why did you act when you didn't understand? Frustration? Bad move.
Click to expand...

Again, this comes down to whether the provisions of the Preamble may be included under the elastic clause.

The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...

Chief Justice Marshall was a smart man. He understood that the government may pursue the provisions granted to it beyond the letter of the law. At the same time, which you pointed out, if a law does not further an interest in the pursuit of the provisions, then the legislation/action is unconstitutional.

The quote you provided didn't do anything for your argument except point out the obvious. The quote above is the opposite of your quotation, which goes to show that Marshall was essentially explaining this basic principle to any reader.

You have still not shown that the Preamble may not be included as powers granted to the government. Furthermore, the evidence in its entirety points to the constitutionality of SS, which was the original debate.
 
Henrin said:
What did Marshall say exactly in his decision? Did he say

A) If a decision comes up and the court has to decide on it that doesn't fit the powers of government this court has to allow it.

B) the opposite.
Click to expand...

And? I never said A, and if you want to go look for a post where I did, have fun, it isn't there.
 
Bite the bullet, pay those who have contributed and end it without a replacement. Social Security is a flawed system. A tip of the hat to FDR and the 74th Congress for passing this ponzi scheme.
 
cpwill said:
the 1930's. you got them confused with the 1920's ;)
Click to expand...

Nope, you do. The Great Depression began in 1929 and the social programs that created the strongest middle class began in the 30's.
but the "period where our middle class was strongest" breaks down into two decades; the 1920's (when the middle class was largely created out of formerly lower class people) and the 1980's (when huge numbers of the middle class began to move up the ladder into the upper middle and upper classes).
Click to expand...

Every time the American people have been suckered into lowering the taxes on the wealty it ends the same way, in a recession. How did the 20's end up?

crash-of-1929great-depression.jpg


you seem to have "strength" confused with "flatlining". in reality, the average poor person today lives a life similar to the average middle class person circa the ever-vaunted 1950's. the 50's were only celebrated because they were experienced by people whose memories were dominated by the Great Depression and WWII
Click to expand...
.

The 50's only required one bread winner in the family to stay above the poverty line, today more and more of the middle class are sliding into poverty with both parents working. We narrowly avoided another Deoression through the stimulus spending and we've had multiple wars that have lasted much longer than WWII. At the same time the wealth of those at the top has been increasing. And you are surpised the middle class is starting to buck?


incidentally, the 'boom of the 50's? was kicked off by a massive reduction in government spending ;)
Click to expand...

I'm all for massive cuts in spending. Let's start by reducing our military spending by one fifth and ending our optional wars.

Look at what our military spending level was in the 50's.


popping the cap wouldn't give us nearly enough revenue to meet our liabilities. and given that the program is already running a deficit, the "lock the funds" idea is pretty much locking the barn after the horse has escaped.
Click to expand...

It is not running a deficit. All payments have been made without adding to the National debt.

so your suggestion here wouldn't solve the problem.
Click to expand...

If you find evidence to support that claim be sure to let me know.

now that is generally true. Was it Twain who said that? That "Democracy ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."?
Click to expand...

Yep, and he was absolutely correct. How can we expect a representative government to be smarter than the group of people they come from?
 
Last edited:
repeter said:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Preamble is part of the Constitution, and is a very rough outline of the extent of the government's powers.
Click to expand...


Exactly, the Preamble describes the intent of the Constitution.
 
repeter said:
Thats for the courts to decide. If they decide it isn't, which in my memory they haven't, then it is allowable. The wonderful thing about the Constitution, is that if you have a question about the constitutionality of something, you can take it to the courts. Given that we've had many of these social programs since FDR, their constitutionality is not a question.

If you recall, the AAA was declared unconstitutional back then. So, the courts were active around the time SS was passed, adding to the fact that its obviously constitutional. If you think it isn't, find a case to argue against it.
Click to expand...

FDR threatened to pack the courts with people that would rubber stamp his policies.
I wouldn't call it constitutional with that in mind.
 
repeter said:
You have still not shown that the Preamble may not be included as powers granted to the government. Furthermore, the evidence in its entirety points to the constitutionality of SS, which was the original debate.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me how its necessary for the country? Just wondering.

I will say this what I said earlier about me correcting myself you seemed to ignore. In order for something to be necessary it has to do more than just be something you need.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
FDR threatened to pack the courts with people that would rubber stamp his policies.
I wouldn't call it constitutional with that in mind.
Click to expand...

So your point is that if either party has a majority in the Court, their rulings are invalid and don't have to be followed?
 
It is not running a deficit. All payments have been made without adding to the National debt.
Click to expand...

That doesn't look honest. It is a ponzi scheme, paying out far more (and headed for broke)... last I checked. Not counting the negative balance either occuring now or in the near future is claiming sustainability where there is not.

I'm no economist, how about a review of the balance sheet?
 
Catawba said:
So your point is that if either party has a majority in the Court, their rulings are invalid and don't have to be followed?
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said.
When a person has to threaten the supreme court with a loss of power in order to get them to comply, it shows that the laws or policies in question, are not based on valid legal theory.

Ruling of the law are based on factual meaning, not **** we make up as we go along.

The Constitution was supposed to be the supreme law of the land, was not supposed to be reinterpreted as time went on, otherwise they would have never included an amending process.
 
ecofarm said:
That doesn't look honest. It is a ponzi scheme, paying out far more (and headed for broke)... last I checked. Not counting the negative balance either occuring now or in the near future is claiming sustainability where there is not.

I'm no economist, how about a review of the balance sheet?
Click to expand...

It's not added to the national debt, but the debt still exists.
It's a nifty little accounting trick the only the government is allowed to get away with.

If you added up both, internal and external liabilities of the Federal government, it would make you crap kittens.
 
ecofarm said:
That doesn't look honest. It is a ponzi scheme, paying out far more (and headed for broke)... last I checked. Not counting the negative balance either occuring now or in the near future is claiming sustainability where there is not.

I'm no economist, how about a review of the balance sheet?
Click to expand...

Contrary to the widespread myth further forwarded by the commission, Social Security is neither going broke nor causing our federal deficits. It never contributed and, unless the law is changed, never will contribute a penny to the debt. It is self-financing, has no borrowing authority, and cannot pay benefits unless it has the income on hand to cover the entire cost.

Today, Social Security is running surpluses and will be in sound financial shape for nearly three decades. Even after that, its long-term shortfall can be addressed easily without cuts. If a corporation could make such claims to its shareholders, it would be cause for champagne, not gloom and doom."
Cutting Social Security will not fix the national debt - CSMonitor.com
 
Catawba said:
Contrary to the widespread myth further forwarded by the commission, Social Security is neither going broke nor causing our federal deficits. It never contributed and, unless the law is changed, never will contribute a penny to the debt. It is self-financing, has no borrowing authority, and cannot pay benefits unless it has the income on hand to cover the entire cost.

Today, Social Security is running surpluses and will be in sound financial shape for nearly three decades. Even after that, its long-term shortfall can be addressed easily without cuts. If a corporation could make such claims to its shareholders, it would be cause for champagne, not gloom and doom."
Cutting Social Security will not fix the national debt - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...

Oh really. :lol:

MSNBC said:
New congressional projections also show Social Security running permanent annual deficits unless lawmakers act to shore up the massive retirement and disability program.

CBO said that Social Security will pay out $45 billion more in benefits this year than it will collect in payroll taxes, further straining the nation's finances. The deficits will continue until the Social Security trust funds are eventually drained, in about 2037.
Click to expand...

CBO: U.S. budget deficit to hit $1.5 trillion - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com

MSNBC and CBO > than opinion collumn on CSM
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
That isn't what I said.
When a person has to threaten the supreme court with a loss of power in order to get them to comply, it shows that the laws or policies in question, are not based on valid legal theory.
Click to expand...

Every president tries to place partisan judges. That is why we have had a conservative court for so long. And even the Conservative court has not overturned SS on Constitutional grounds.

Ruling of the law are based on factual meaning, not **** we make up as we go along.
Click to expand...

Right, and the SS is the body designated by the Constitution to determine what is Constituional. I find nothing in the Constition about giving that power instead to wingnut armchair lawyers on political forums.

The Constitution was supposed to be the supreme law of the land...............
Click to expand...

As interpreted by the SS.
 
Catawba said:
Nope, you do. The Great Depression began in 1929 and the social programs that created the strongest middle class began in the 30's.


Every time the American people have been suckered into lowering the taxes on the wealty it ends the same way, in a recession. How did the 20's end up?
Click to expand...

The Great Depression had nothing to do with taxes. It was Federal Reserve policy that killed the economy. Nothing our government could do about it. It also didn't help that Hoover greatly increased federal spending during his term in office.

Most social programs in the 1930s didn't have a lasting effect on the US economy (a few exceptions such as the FHA), nor did many have a positive one. The strongest middle class came during and after the war. America went from producing war goods to consumer goods almost overnight. This caused an economic boom. There was also a desire to house veterans which helped lead to the growth of suburbs.
 
Catawba said:
Every president tries to place partisan judges. That is why we have had a conservative court for so long. And even the Conservative court has not overturned SS on Constitutional grounds.
Click to expand...

So what?
That doesn't mean it was right.

Catawba said:
Right, and the SS is the body designated by the Constitution to determine what is Constituional. I find nothing in the Constition about giving that power instead to wingnut armchair lawyers on political forums.
Click to expand...

It does give me power, it says so right there in the Constitution.
The powers not delegated to the government are delegated to the states or the people.

I am one of the people.

Catawba said:
As interpreted by the SS.
Click to expand...

I find it so ironic that you decry Bush, yet support a president who was infinitely more fascist than Bush ever was or could be. :doh
 
Catawba said:
That is US government debt. Not a deficit from the operation of SS. SS has been so successful, the proceeds have been used to offset the cost of wars and other government spending.
Click to expand...

I'm quite aware of what it is.
Any other organization would be legally obligated to present it as a valid debt, but the good ole U.S. government can play dishonest and not do the same thing.

Weird that you support dishonesty. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom