• 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!

My Internal Conflict with SS and the Constitution

I think if we could help the private market create an alternative. Stocks and bonds are great but SS is the best of both worlds; security and guarantee, with enough money to supplement the stocks and bonds they already own. Then I would be in favor of repealing SS, but 2040ish we will have to anyway. My belief is that I would rather people spend money on an IPod or a nice dinner than save for retirement. Spending creates jobs and is the foundation of our economy.
 
Flyersfan314 said:
I think if we could help the private market create an alternative. Stocks and bonds are great but SS is the best of both worlds; security and guarantee, with enough money to supplement the stocks and bonds they already own. Then I would be in favor of repealing SS, but 2040ish we will have to anyway. My belief is that I would rather people spend money on an IPod or a nice dinner than save for retirement. Spending creates jobs and is the foundation of our economy.
Click to expand...

Wow! You would rather buy an IPod than save for retirement? No wonder this country is in debt and has not saved sufficiently for retirement. Frugality is a virtue that is lost on far too many people.

Okay, so there is now no need to further discuss options to Social Security. How about the Constitution? Is that worth discussing?
 
No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that it is better for people to buy commercial goods than save for retirement. Of course people have ot save for retiremtn but the more they do the less consumer spending takes place. This is what has been happening throughout the recession.

I don't know why you are looking for conflict that is not there.
 
Flyersfan314 said:
No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that it is better for people to buy commercial goods than save for retirement. Of course people have ot save for retiremtn but the more they do the less consumer spending takes place. This is what has been happening throughout the recession.

I don't know why you are looking for conflict that is not there.
Click to expand...

I suggest that people should not change their good virtues for bad vices during a recession. People should save during good days and rainy days and spend accordingly.

I am not looking for conflict. I just disagree with things you say. Call me a contrarian, if you will. I think the message given was wrong and I wanted to provide an alternative message.

With that, I will move on. Thanks for the discussion. I only hope readers will have a better understanding of the Constitution and a different way of looking at things. If that is the result of our conversations, I am pleased. Elsewhere and later.
 
They should save. I have said that before. The point of SS is that they dont have to save as much so they can spend. This is more helpful to the economy.
 
I think a lot of the critiques of SS are completely legitimate... i think we would all have less of a problem if all of the federal government programs were much more efficient. Something really needs to crack down onto it.
There is a reason why national government programs are inefficient, its actually the same reason why communism/Socialism is inefficient ( Not saying they are the same in any way)- They are not build upon enough incentives, actually the only incentives that are being applied are big corporation lobbyist (not at all implying corporations are bad/evil) its not their fault that there are a lack of incentives in government. Since the government is a monopoly, there is no competition regulating efficiency. Budget and spending limits, with private sector mingling on certain programs can introduce that incentive.
In the real world, a "good" program for the public isn't enough incentive to make it do well.
 
Flyersfan314 said:
They should save. I have said that before. The point of SS is that they dont have to save as much so they can spend. This is more helpful to the economy.
Click to expand...

Consumer spending is not the point or the goal of social security. If you really thought through the things you've been saying, you'd be arguing to abandon it so that consumers could then spend the amount of their SS taxes that is currently withheld. I think you are pulling this and almost everything else you've written in this thread out of your behind.
 
solletica said:
Is there a law anywhere that actually requires the govt to pay out SS checks? As far as I'm aware, SS is not an enforceable legal contract, but merely a handout used by Congress to appease the (gullible) over-65 middle class.
Click to expand...

Social Security Act of 1935:

"The act created a uniquely American solution to the problem of old-age pensions. Unlike many European nations, U.S. social security "insurance" was supported from "contributions" in the form of taxes on individuals’ wages and employers’ payrolls rather than directly from Government funds. The act also provided funds to assist children, the blind, and the unemployed; to institute vocational training programs; and provide family health programs. As a result, enactment of Social Security brought into existence complex administrative challenges. The Social Security Act authorized the Social Security Board to register citizens for benefits, to administer the contributions."
Our Documents - Social Security Act (1935)
 
Neomalthusian said:
Consumer spending is not the point or the goal of social security. If you really thought through the things you've been saying, you'd be arguing to abandon it so that consumers could then spend the amount of their SS taxes that is currently withheld. I think you are pulling this and almost everything else you've written in this thread out of your behind.
Click to expand...

No consumer spending is not the point but it is a reault. When people don;t have to save as much for retirement the spend money on other things. A complete abandonment all together would cause people to save more and not spend. SS covers COLA. Its common sense, I'm sorry if it doesn't agree with your philosophy.
 
Flyersfan314 said:
My biggest conflict right now is how I do not believe SS (and other programs) to be constitutional but I also believe it is a benefit to society and without it we would have greater problems economical and socially. I am trying to reconcile my beliefs and values. I know the constitution is important but what if it prohibits something good? In this political climate I do not believe we could get an amendment passed; so should we repeal it even if it would bring harm to people? Would this go against the spirit of the constitution?
Click to expand...

yes.



eventually we will get back to it, or bring it to us. right now, we can only stop further abuses and try to modify what has already occurred so it does less damage.
 
Flyersfan314 said:
No consumer spending is not the point but it is a reault. When people don;t have to save as much for retirement the spend money on other things. A complete abandonment all together would cause people to save more and not spend. SS covers COLA. Its common sense, I'm sorry if it doesn't agree with your philosophy.
Click to expand...

that is why we need to give people private accounts within SS that they could invest tax - free. they would actually be able to save for retirement, retire financially independent, and do so without reducing their take-home pay by a single dime.

not only would they spend more, they would also save more, and social security wouldnt' be threatning our long term fiscal survival.
 
Catawba said:
Social Security Act of 1935:

"The act created a uniquely American solution to the problem of old-age pensions. Unlike many European nations, U.S. social security "insurance" was supported from "contributions" in the form of taxes on individuals’ wages and employers’ payrolls rather than directly from Government funds. The act also provided funds to assist children, the blind, and the unemployed; to institute vocational training programs; and provide family health programs. As a result, enactment of Social Security brought into existence complex administrative challenges. The Social Security Act authorized the Social Security Board to register citizens for benefits, to administer the contributions."
Our Documents - Social Security Act (1935)
Click to expand...

that doesn't really answer his question. No matter what you pay in, you still dont' have any kind of a legal "right" to get any money out. because it's a tax.
 
cpwill said:
that doesn't really answer his question. No matter what you pay in, you still dont' have any kind of a legal "right" to get any money out. because it's a tax.
Click to expand...

That is your sad interpretation. Fortunately, most Americans do not agree with your recommendation for Americans to walk away from their financial commitments?

SS has been the rule of law in this country for 76 years under both parties. I happen to believe in the rule of law, though I realize that some do not.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
any citizen who wants to abolish ss and medicare while giving tax breaks to the wealthy and to the corporations is anti american. i'd like to see the faces of the tea partiers when they no longer get their medicare and ss.
Click to expand...


that is silly

massive unconstitutional handouts and entitlements are a major reason why we have the mess we have now

congress passes crap and people become dependent on the crap and judges are told they cannot throw out the crap because there are too many addicts
 
Catawba said:
That is your sad interpretation. Fortunately, most Americans do not agree with your recommendation for Americans to walk away from their financial commitments?
Click to expand...

it wasn't a recommendation. it was a description of the law. and it isn't my interpretation; it's the Supreme Courts'.
 
Flyersfan314 said:
My biggest conflict right now is how I do not believe SS (and other programs) to be constitutional but I also believe it is a benefit to society and without it we would have greater problems economical and socially. I am trying to reconcile my beliefs and values. I know the constitution is important but what if it prohibits something good? In this political climate I do not believe we could get an amendment passed; so should we repeal it even if it would bring harm to people? Would this go against the spirit of the constitution?
Click to expand...
Why can't welfare like SS be done on the state level? That would be perfectly constitutional.
 
For those just joining this topic now I have already debated the advantages and disadvantages of SS verses private investment. Both are important for the long term financial health of many individuals.
 
cpwill said:
it wasn't a recommendation. it was a description of the law. and it isn't my interpretation; it's the Supreme Courts'.
Click to expand...

The supreme court has ruled SS constitutional for the last 76 years under both parties. :sun
 
Flyersfan314 said:
No consumer spending is not the point but it is a reault. When people don;t have to save as much for retirement the spend money on other things.
Click to expand...

Whatever goes into SS is that much less that they are paid. It's zero-sum. Theoretically without SS they could just as easily privately save 7.65% and be in no different shape, except that that money would actually be theirs, not redistributions from the paychecks of future workers.

A complete abandonment all together would cause people to save more and not spend.
Click to expand...

No, it would allow them to spend more and not save. Look up people's worsening saving habits since implementing SS. People are increasingly oblivious to and in denial of their future retirement needs.
 
It is not zero sum. People would save more than the 6.2% coming out of their paychecks to account for changing COLA. With SS they don;t have to worry about that.
 
Flyersfan314 said:
It is not zero sum. People would save more than the 6.2% coming out of their paychecks to account for changing COLA. With SS they don;t have to worry about that.
Click to expand...

1). How do you know what they would do?
2). With SS they do have to worry about the ability of future taxpayers to keep their SS checks meaningfully substantial. It's not one's own money they're getting back.
 
CarlF said:
Why can't welfare like SS be done on the state level? That would be perfectly constitutional.
Click to expand...

The administration of welfare was turned over to the states in the 90's. Now, states and even counties devise their own methods of caring for the poor.
 
Neomalthusian said:
1). How do you know what they would do?
2). With SS they do have to worry about the ability of future taxpayers to keep their SS checks meaningfully substantial. It's not one's own money they're getting back.
Click to expand...

Answering #2 first, no they dont. SS has always been reliable. Young people have to worry.

Social security has reduce individual savings; this indicates that people are either invesitng or spending more money.
http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/0/ca8799163acbc9e985256863004b1f34/$FILE/v49n2151.pdf
 
Catawba said:
The supreme court has ruled SS constitutional for the last 76 years under both parties. :sun
Click to expand...

Could you please provide a link to the case where this happened and specify the words the Supreme Court used to specifically say that Social Security was constitutional? Thanks.
 
LesGovt said:
Could you please provide a link to the case where this happened and specify the words the Supreme Court used to specifically say that Social Security was constitutional? Thanks.
Click to expand...

"The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937."
Social Security Online
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom