• 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
I never said that. I said the people's power to disrupt the government after they've established it by voting is limited. That means we can't do whatever we want. The Constitution already establishes the extent of the government's power, but that is a somewhat seperate subject.

Sorry, I was confused by your previous post. You were Talking about the constitution and said the powers reserved to the people are very limited, when in reality our powers should encompass everything besides what the govt is specifically authorized to do.
 
i am confused (admittedly, a frequent state). do you stand by the above post or this one?
One is a matter of practicality and the other a philosophical one, the way our government was meant to be. If we suddenly got a tyrannical gOvernment, we probably couldnt do much. We don't have the tanks...
Sorry for any misspellings or random caps. My iPhones autocorrect is acting up.
 
Its not jsut the fact that it hasn't been overturned, it hasn't even been challenged in a serious way before, at least not that I've ever heard. Given its 70 year history, I would think that somewhere along the line it becomes evident it is constitutional for any number of reasons.

70 years isn't that long and the fact that a lot of judges rely on stare decisis is problematic.


And those powers are very, very limited. It does not include the power to determine the constitutionality of legislative/executive actions.

Sure it does, a lot of the FF's thought we should use nullification in the event of unconstitutional actions by the feds.

Its more than what they were, it was what we needed at the time. Back then, we needed a level of facist control over the country, and we needed someone to take charge.

We didn't need that now, though we needed it to a small extent following 9/11 IMO, and we got it.

That's nonsense.
FDR was a great sales man, he tricked a lot of people into believing that what he did was even successful, as far as economic policy goes, but it wasn't.

Reading the letters and journals of his appointments reveals, they didn't know what they were doing.
 
Sorry, I was confused by your previous post. You were Talking about the constitution and said the powers reserved to the people are very limited, when in reality our powers should encompass everything besides what the govt is specifically authorized to do.

Oh, I gotcha, sorry for miscommunicating as well.
 
70 years isn't that long and the fact that a lot of judges rely on stare decisis is problematic.

Its long enough for a challenge to be made against SS. Without respecting precedent, we'd put a lot of decision-making ability on thousands of judges across the country, and that would make everything a lot more complicated, and more likely to get messed up.

Sure it does, a lot of the FF's thought we should use nullification in the event of unconstitutional actions by the feds.

That argument ended along with the Civil War.

That's nonsense.
FDR was a great sales man, he tricked a lot of people into believing that what he did was even successful, as far as economic policy goes, but it wasn't.

Reading the letters and journals of his appointments reveals, they didn't know what they were doing.

Even pretending to know what you're doing is taking charge. We needed a strong executive and thats what FDR was.
 
They didn't vote against his contested policies, after the threat of court packing.

I don't think that would have had any effect on their decisions. It was obvious the scheme was unconstitutional on its face, and was not going to get anywhere with Congress.
 
Its long enough for a challenge to be made against SS. Without respecting precedent, we'd put a lot of decision-making ability on thousands of judges across the country, and that would make everything a lot more complicated, and more likely to get messed up.

Not really, these things can languish for long periods of time.
A lot of the intent behind it not being overturned is that no judge wants to be the guy that ended SS.
He'd be villified.

That argument ended along with the Civil War.

Why?
What's wrong with it?

Even pretending to know what you're doing is taking charge. We needed a strong executive and thats what FDR was.

No, we just suffer from historical revisionism that came after FDR.
The guy was clever but not good.
 
I don't think that would have had any effect on their decisions. It was obvious the scheme was unconstitutional on its face, and was not going to get anywhere with Congress.

You're kidding right?

There have been at least 2 times in the past that free speech has been curtailed against the government.
It was passed by congress.
 
You're kidding right?

There have been at least 2 times in the past that free speech has been curtailed against the government.
It was passed by congress.

which two times are you referencing?
 
As a child I like the idea, however when I become an adult, I would say I need to be responsible for myself. And I don't have any disabilities or problems that prevent me from taking care of myself without external care of some sort. The biggest thing about SS to me thats wrong with it is the precedent it sets. It coddles people, and we need to become more independent, and more aware of our economic states rather than less, which is what SS encourages, IMO.

I will say that's a good reply. Nothing I would scold anybody about like I always seem to. We've certainly seen lots of evidence of that coddling. But matching funds might also get people to earn more. I guess exactly like it did me. I don't want to get stuck taking care of the millions of people with no safety net. Amd I don't want you to either.
 
So what?
That doesn't mean it was right.

Just shows that it has been the realty. You didn't address my observation, "And even the Conservative court has not overturned SS on Constitutional grounds."


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.

That is correct, and we the people have the power to change our government through our votes.



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

I don't only defend Obama in areas where it is deserved. You haven't seen me defending his continuance of the so called "war on terror" have you? And you haven't seen me defending his continuance of a bloated, imperialistic-sized military have you?
 
If it was extremely well managed the money wouldn't have been spent to cause an internal government debt.


The fund was extremely well managed, and it was routinely robbed. Two different things. Did you vote for the candidated that proposed locking the funds from being robbed?
 
Eh, I question your source.

That is funny! You question historians and throw up an editorial from WorldNetDaily as your rebuttal. While it explains about the origins of your false notions, it hardly refutes the historians.
 
Just shows that it has been the realty. You didn't address my observation, "And even the Conservative court has not overturned SS on Constitutional grounds."

The reality of legal precedent isn't always based on truth.
That I am fully aware of.


That is correct, and we the people have the power to change our government through our votes.

Except when one group, absolutely refuses to let another, live their life as they see fit.




I don't only defend Obama in areas where it is deserved. You haven't seen me defending his continuance of the so called "war on terror" have you? And you haven't seen me defending his continuance of a bloated, imperialistic-sized military have you?

You've been the one tooting the "our forefathers" line, directly linking back to some of the most quasi fascist presidents in history.
I find it quite ironic that you do that, but decry Bush.

It's just a huge inconsistency in your belief system.

The fund was extremely well managed, and it was routinely robbed. Two different things. Did you vote for the candidated that proposed locking the funds from being robbed?

Not two different things at all.
If it were well managed, then it would not have been taken from, by the managers.
It's a contradictory statement.

I was not old enough to vote for Al Gore, nor any other.
 
The Roaring Twenties were a time of unprecedented prosperity.

That ended with the worst depression in our history. I prefer the more long lasting prosperity for the Middle class brought about by FDR's programs.

"On the surface, the scenario sounds unlikely. But a growing cadre of economic analysts note the steady erosion of the middle class, and the loss of its massive buying power. In a recent article, my Daily Finance colleague Charles Hugh Smith laid out a fairly clear argument for the disappearance of the middle class, at least in terms of wealth. As Smith notes, the top 20% of the American populace holds roughly 93% of the country's financial wealth, and the top 1% of the country holds approximately 43% of the money in the U.S. Meanwhile, the middle 20% of the population -- what would, officially, be called the middle class -- holds only 6% of the country's total assets. While disturbing, even this minuscule share of the wealth pie dwarfs the bottom 40% of the country, who control less than 1%."

"If the low wages, dangerous workplace conditions and a suicidal workforce sounds familiar, it's because that describes the conditions in many American factories in the late 1800's and early 1900's. This situation was largely remediated by the growing power of organized labor, which successfully pushed for minimum wage, collective bargaining, reasonable work weeks, and many of the other rights that today's workers enjoy. Yet, in the past few decades, "the unions" have become an all-purpose scapegoat for inflexible work rules and the rising cost of American-made goods, as low-cost overseas labor has led to massive outsourcing. And in recent years, some of that reputation may be deserved. Yet the fact remains that organized labor did much to create the American middle class.

If the middle class is to rise to anything approaching its former power, American manufacturing must rebound. While the U.S. is still in the upper ranks of the world's largest consumers, its economy is rapidly slipping down on the global list. According to some economists, China's economy is on track to overtake the U.S. by 2040; ten years later, India will also outstrip America. Economic strength requires a strong manufacturing base, but while Asian countries are building theirs, America has slowly allowed its own base to starve."


See full article from DailyFinance: Disturbing Statistics on the Decline of America's Middle Class - DailyFinance
 
False. Elected officials do not have the right to do anything they please.

Correct, illegal actions are subject to penalty and they are all subject to recall or no re-election by voters if they do not act in the voters interests. Is there anything else?
 
Except when one group, absolutely refuses to let another, live their life as they see fit.

Which group would that be?







Not two different things at all.
If it were well managed, then it would not have been taken from, by the managers.
It's a contradictory statement.

Too bad you didn't vote for the candidate that proposed locking those funds from that very thing, huh? We get the government we deserve.

I was not old enough to vote for Al Gore, nor any other.

Well, fortunately all that's needed is to lock the funds and increase the FICA cap.

SS is all that stands between 40% of our elderly falling into povery. It is too important to not properly protect.


"When Social Security (SS) was signed into law in 1935, the poverty rate among seniors exceeded 50%. As far as I know, there were no private retirement programs at that time. Unless a senior was wealthy, they either had to work until they died or depend upon family to care for them. I will not go into the discrimination (against women, minorities, and certain types of employment) that was later legislated out of the original bill but, in general, for the first time this country took a stand that protected many, but not all, of the elderly from abject poverty. Today, it is estimated that all that stands between poverty and 40% of the elderly is Social Security.

As first established, the payroll tax to fund the system flowed into the general revenue fund for the federal government. However, in 1939, Congress created the Social Security Trust Fund to manage surplus funds and this Trust had the power to invest the surplus in marketable and non-marketable securities. In other words, like a private retirement account, the growth of surplus funds was intended to handle future retirements. In 2007, according to one source, there was a cumulative surplus of $2.2 trillion dollars in taxes and interest after benefits were paid.

Unfortunately, the Trust loans any excess money to the federal government in the form of bonds, giving Congress a ready source of funds. Of course these bonds have to be repaid, with interest, by more taxes later. The system is in trouble because the government borrowed the surplus, spent it, and now does not have the resources to repay the Trust. The way it looks, Bush was correct in referring to these bonds as “just IOUs that I saw firsthand.”

In 2000, during the Presidential campaign, Al Gore talked about placing Social Security funds into a “lock box.” Everybody laughed at him and thought the idea of a “lock box” was silly. Essentially, what Gore proposed was to stop lending surplus funds to the government. He wanted SS and Medicare placed off-limits to politicians. If this had happened, and that is a very big IF, projections were that SS would be self-sustaining, essentially forever.

The current debate would lead one to think that SS is a flawed system. Not so. It is the huge debt owed the Trust by the government that is the problem. The flaw is that both parties raped the system by “borrowing” the surplus with no plan to repay it and now we have to deal with the consequences.
Unless the current commission working on the problem demands that any and all surplus funds be placed off limits to politicians, there will be no effective solution. Keep the surplus money in a “lock box” where it belongs. And demand that the government make yearly contributions until the bonds have been repaid. There is no need to increase the retirement age or raise payroll taxes or reduce benefits. Stop lending the excess to fund other programs."

http://likethedew.com/2010/07/17/social-security-and-the-lock-box-a-delayed-solution/
 
Which group would that be?

Your group, the one so resistant to change.

Too bad you didn't vote for the candidate that proposed locking those funds from that very thing, huh? We get the government we deserve.

Seeing that I wasn't allowed to by law and that even if I were, it would be a false dilemma, so it isn't a superior situation.

Well, fortunately all that's needed is to lock the funds and increase the FICA cap.

SS is all that stands between 40% of our elderly falling into povery. It is too important to not properly protect.


"When Social Security (SS) was signed into law in 1935, the poverty rate among seniors exceeded 50%. As far as I know, there were no private retirement programs at that time. Unless a senior was wealthy, they either had to work until they died or depend upon family to care for them. I will not go into the discrimination (against women, minorities, and certain types of employment) that was later legislated out of the original bill but, in general, for the first time this country took a stand that protected many, but not all, of the elderly from abject poverty. Today, it is estimated that all that stands between poverty and 40% of the elderly is Social Security.

As first established, the payroll tax to fund the system flowed into the general revenue fund for the federal government. However, in 1939, Congress created the Social Security Trust Fund to manage surplus funds and this Trust had the power to invest the surplus in marketable and non-marketable securities. In other words, like a private retirement account, the growth of surplus funds was intended to handle future retirements. In 2007, according to one source, there was a cumulative surplus of $2.2 trillion dollars in taxes and interest after benefits were paid.

Unfortunately, the Trust loans any excess money to the federal government in the form of bonds, giving Congress a ready source of funds. Of course these bonds have to be repaid, with interest, by more taxes later. The system is in trouble because the government borrowed the surplus, spent it, and now does not have the resources to repay the Trust. The way it looks, Bush was correct in referring to these bonds as “just IOUs that I saw firsthand.”

In 2000, during the Presidential campaign, Al Gore talked about placing Social Security funds into a “lock box.” Everybody laughed at him and thought the idea of a “lock box” was silly. Essentially, what Gore proposed was to stop lending surplus funds to the government. He wanted SS and Medicare placed off-limits to politicians. If this had happened, and that is a very big IF, projections were that SS would be self-sustaining, essentially forever.

The current debate would lead one to think that SS is a flawed system. Not so. It is the huge debt owed the Trust by the government that is the problem. The flaw is that both parties raped the system by “borrowing” the surplus with no plan to repay it and now we have to deal with the consequences.
Unless the current commission working on the problem demands that any and all surplus funds be placed off limits to politicians, there will be no effective solution. Keep the surplus money in a “lock box” where it belongs. And demand that the government make yearly contributions until the bonds have been repaid. There is no need to increase the retirement age or raise payroll taxes or reduce benefits. Stop lending the excess to fund other programs."

Social Security and the

With all that nonsense said, SS is inherently discriminatory against black males.
See they have lower life expectancies and for a long time, it meant that on average they weren't even likely to receive it in the first place.

There is no good reason why mandatory private accounts shouldn't exist, you just continue to make excuses to preserve the status quo, when that status quo has been horribly mismanaged.

If both parties caused the mismanagement, change it so neither party can mismanage it ever again.
You take it away from them.
 
Your group, the one so resistant to change.

You mean the middle class?


With all that nonsense said, SS is inherently discriminatory against black males.
See they have lower life expectancies and for a long time, it meant that on average they weren't even likely to receive it in the first place.

So your suggestion is to lowere the age to collect benefits for black males? I'll go along with you on that.
There is no good reason why mandatory private accounts shouldn't exist, you just continue to make excuses to preserve the status quo, when that status quo has been horribly mismanaged.

And what happens to those mandatory private accounts if the institution holding them declares bandruptsy? Makes much more sense to simply lock the funds as Gore proposed and raise the FICA cap. Problem solved without the risks for 40% of our elderly in the private market.

If both parties caused the mismanagement, change it so neither party can mismanage it ever again.
You take it away from them.

That would be throwing the baby out with the bath water when it is not necessary. Beides, 80% of Americans want to keep SS, so scrapping it is just not going to happen.
 
You mean the middle class?

No I mean the people who don't have any understanding of what the political economy is.
Those that think they can continually band aid problems caused by legislation, with more legislation.


So your suggestion is to lowere the age to collect benefits for black males? I'll go along with you on that.

No I suggest we stop having social security.

And what happens to those mandatory private accounts if the institution holding them declares bandruptsy? Makes much more sense to simply lock the funds as Gore proposed and raise the FICA cap. Problem solved without the risks for 40% of our elderly in the private market.

All of these institutions are insured, all of them.
They have private insurance beyond the measly 250k that the government grants.

No it doesn't make sense, not at all it's just another band aid and wealth transfer scheme.
The lock box will never be permanently locked, as we have already experienced.

That would be throwing the baby out with the bath water when it is not necessary. Beides, 80% of Americans want to keep SS, so scrapping it is just not going to happen.

It is necessary, because the politicians of both parties have shown that they can not be trusted with our money.

Geesh, why do you propose to do things that have been shown not to work?
 
No I mean the people who don't have any understanding of what the political economy is.
Those that think they can continually band aid problems caused by legislation, with more legislation.

80% of Americans think SS is important. I'm with them. Throwing half our elderly to the wolves as you propose is not a viable option.



No I suggest we stop having social security.

You are in a very tiny minority. Fortunately, we have a representative government.



All of these institutions are insured, all of them.
They have private insurance beyond the measly 250k that the government grants.

So no pensions have been lost in private markets?

No it doesn't make sense, not at all it's just another band aid and wealth transfer scheme.
The lock box will never be permanently locked, as we have already experienced.


A Constitutional Amendment will prevent it from happening.




Geesh, why do you propose to do things that have been shown not to work?


It has worked spectactularly well. When SS was created, 50% of the elderly lived in poverty. Its not hard to see why there is no interest in returning to that situation.
 
Back
Top Bottom