• 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
Mellie said:
There's a need to do many things, but it's not the government's job to play nanny to the people.
Click to expand...

It is in the Constitution. Our government is to promote the welfare of the people. Not only are we Constitutionally charged with this, it is our moral responsibility to help take care of the less fortunate, and it makes sense if we want a strong country!
 
Catawba said:
It is in the Constitution. Our government is to promote the welfare of the people. Not only are we Constitutionally charged with this, it is our moral responsibility to help take care of the less fortunate, and it makes sense if we want a strong country!
Click to expand...

so it is your learned opinion-as a constitutional scholar-that the general welfare means income redistribution from one part of society to another
 
TurtleDude said:
so it is your learned opinion-as a constitutional scholar-that the general welfare means income redistribution from one part of society to another
Click to expand...

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.
 
Catawba said:
It is in the Constitution. Our government is to promote the welfare of the people. Not only are we Constitutionally charged with this, it is our moral responsibility to help take care of the less fortunate, and it makes sense if we want a strong country!
Click to expand...

That is utter horse****. The welfare clause gives no power, it enlarges the enumeration of the listed powers. You shouldn't speak of what you don't know.
 
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...

This argument takes no effort, no knowledge, and zero ability. You need to do better than say the courts decide stuff. It doesn't fly. If I was only interested in what a body of people that build cases on top of cases in complete ignorance thought I wouldn't have a mind of my own and there would be no reason to know the truth of what is and isn't constitutional.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
This argument takes no effort, no knowledge, and zero ability. You need to do better than say the courts decide stuff. It doesn't fly. If I was only interested in what a body of people that build cases on top of cases in complete ignorance thought I wouldn't have a mind of my own and there would be no reason to know the truth of what is and isn't constitutional.
Click to expand...

What nation are you writing about? Your two posts directly above this one certainly do NOT apply to the Unites States of America in the year 2011.
 
haymarket said:
What nation are you writing about? Your two posts directly above this one certainly do NOT apply to the Unites States of America in the year 2011.
Click to expand...

According to you. I have said exactly what I said before and last time this all you managed. Maybe this time will be different. Nah..
 
Catawba said:
It is in the Constitution. Our government is to promote the welfare of the people. Not only are we Constitutionally charged with this
Click to expand...
Yes, it says to 'promote,' not 'provide.' They were thiking of things like Justice and Liberty, not monthly stipends and government cheese.
 
cpwill said:
except of course, that if we don't fix it, America fails. and nobody is big enough to bail her out.
Click to expand...

I sorta don't understand what's so hard to fix. Do we just figure on our politicians can't get anything done? Cause it doesn't seem that hard.
 
Henrin said:
According to you. I have said exactly what I said before and last time this all you managed. Maybe this time will be different. Nah..
Click to expand...

It is easy to respond to your posts. I simply give back in kind what you gave in your post. Good for the goose, etc.
 
TurtleDude said:
so it is your learned opinion-as a constitutional scholar-that the general welfare means income redistribution from one part of society to another
Click to expand...

That is not what I said. Try to actually address what I say next time.
 
Henrin said:
That is utter horse****. The welfare clause gives no power, it enlarges the enumeration of the listed powers. You shouldn't speak of what you don't know.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion, I believe in the rule of law evidenced by 80 years of it not being successfully challenged in court. And the highest courts have interpreted the Constitution the same way I have.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Yes, it says to 'promote,' not 'provide.' They were thiking of things like Justice and Liberty, not monthly stipends and government cheese.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion!
 
Catawba said:
It is in the Constitution. Our government is to promote the welfare of the people. Not only are we Constitutionally charged with this, it is our moral responsibility to help take care of the less fortunate, and it makes sense if we want a strong country!
Click to expand...

Interesting. Why was our country constitutionally not charged with this during its first 150 years? I mean, I'd assume the founders would follow what they intended...
Unless, but no. Of course they wanted a welfare state.
 
haymarket said:
It is easy to respond to your posts. I simply give back in kind what you gave in your post. Good for the goose, etc.
Click to expand...

Did I just "you are wrong" like you just did? No, I didn't.
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your opinion, I believe in the rule of law evidenced by 80 years of it not being successfully challenged in court. And the highest courts have interpreted the Constitution the same way I have.
Click to expand...

You like this last 80 years business don't you? I assume you know what I think of it from the last time this is all you could manage.
 
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...
so tell me

without resorting to the FDR lapdog justices

do you honestly think that the general welfare clause meant income redistribution? or the other wlefare schemes of today
 
iamitter said:
Interesting. Why was our country constitutionally not charged with this during its first 150 years? I mean, I'd assume the founders would follow what they intended...
Unless, but no. Of course they wanted a welfare state.
Click to expand...

We evolved.
 
Henrin said:
So intention doesn't go into what clauses mean.

Interesting logic...for a complete dipstick.
Click to expand...

Make your case before the Conservative Court and let me know how it turns out.
 
Catawba said:
Since I do not think economic depression is a good thing, I of course prefer the 80 year period when the middle class was the strongest?
Click to expand...

ah. so since you oppose economic depression; no doubt you also oppose the kinds of high-tax policies that we saw emplaced in the 1930's?

There is no crisis, there is an easy fix. When it is neccesary, it will be implemented.
Click to expand...

the problem is, most of the necessary fix (raising the retirement age, tying the growth in benefits to inflation, means-testing) must be put into place years out if you are to allow people to plan. else we face a future where we will be forced to simply throw massive numbers of Americans off the system cold-turkey, with the parting advice that they should probably figure out how to make up the shortfall.

sazerac said:
I sorta don't understand what's so hard to fix. Do we just figure on our politicians can't get anything done? Cause it doesn't seem that hard.
Click to expand...

the problem is that the incentives for politicians are to engage in short-term thinking rather than long-term thinking. So, if my opponent proposes a long-term fix for Social Security, and I can either join him in solving America's liability crises, or I can get reelected by demagouging him for doing so, the incentive structure for politicians is to demagogue, and let some other sucker down the road deal with the failures of today.

the mathematics of fixing social security are relatively easy. the politics of it are hard.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Make your case before the Conservative Court and let me know how it turns out.
Click to expand...

Oh so now you admit some partisanship. Good to know you can ignore reality and then notice reality as if no one will notice what you are doing. Court is good, pure, the rule of law, and now well its just a conservative court. Yes, good show my boy.
 
cpwill said:
ah. so since you oppose economic depression; no doubt you also oppose the kinds of high-tax policies that we saw emplaced in the 1930's?
Click to expand...

Please reference the depression during the 80 years of the strongest middle class in our history.



the problem is, most of the necessary fix (raising the retirement age, tying the growth in benefits to inflation, means-testing) must be put into place years out if you are to allow people to plan. else we face a future where we will be forced to simply throw massive numbers of Americans off the system cold-turkey, with the parting advice that they should probably figure out how to make up the shortfall.
Click to expand...

None of that is necessary. All that is needed is to raise the FICA cap and lock the funds legislatively so they cannot be used to offset the cost of our optional wars and other government spending. And yes, It should be done now but Americans don't tend to think long-term. So until there is an actually crisis, my guess is we will not be taking the two simple steps I listed.



the problem is that the incentives for politicians are to engage in short-term thinking rather than long-term thinking.
Click to expand...

That is because they represent us. We get the government we deserve.



the mathematics of fixing social security are relatively easy. the politics of it are hard.
Click to expand...

Yep!
 
Last edited:
Pretty damn scary results so far.

See, this is why they don't let people vote.
 
Catawba said:
Please reference the depression during the 80 years of the strongest middle class in our history.
Click to expand...

the 1930's. you got them confused with the 1920'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).

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.

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


None of that is necessary. All that is needed is to raise the FICA cap and lock the funds legislatively so they cannot be used to offset the cost of our optional wars and other government spending
Click to expand...

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.

so your suggestion here wouldn't solve the problem.

That is because they represent us. We get the government we deserve.
Click to expand...

now that is generally true. Was it Twain who said that? That "Democracy ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom