Third Party & Independents: Archives

We believe Clinton’s so-called ordinary American is capable of saving for his own retirement

Misha, we didn’t always have Social Security. It came about for a reason: The ordinary American, capable or not, wasn’t saving for his own retirement. After working until he was useless, he ended up either starving to death or in publicly run poor houses. If he was lucky, he had working children whom he could impose upon to feed and shelter him - at the expense of the grandkids education money. It was a cycle of poverty, and Social Security broke millions of Americans out of it.

The American people realize this. Some of us still have grandparents and great-grandparents who remember what it was like before Social Security and Medicare. That’s why the GOP has to rely on undermining those programs instead of cutting them outright. The American people wouldn’t stand for it.

Bzzzzttttt!!! Wrong Misha. The biggest step ever taken to insure working people will have to fend for themselves is the 10 Trillion dollar debt coming in response to this administration’s policies in just five years from now. The Government will not be able to afford any assistance to those who can afford to help themselves.

Big Bill addresses that in his speech too. Perhaps you missed it.

I find the lack of critical thinking about social security dumbfounding. Economist after economists will tell you that being forced into social security makes almost everyone worse off (the only people who are not made worse off are those who would invest VERY unwisely). Yet out of so-called “compassion” we force working people into this failed system over and over again- and because they are rationally ignorant about how much money social security steals from them (they are too busy working their hands to bone cause social security and other taxes reduce how much of their money they are allowed to take home), they do not understand how much they are getting screwed. Its really a shame and no mainstream politician has the guts to say it because social security has become almost like a deity in american politics.

And David, you know I agree with you on the debt in general. However, there is no way the debt is actually gonna cut into social security, for the above reasons. What will happen is that we will raises taxes signifigantly- probable on the oh-so-evil top 1%- making our tax system even more unfairly progressive. It will likely be a real drastic increase, which will hurt our economy badly. The middle class will probably suffer from another big tax increase also. This way, the government can keep the American people dependent on itself for their retirement while not having to consider cutting its spending (i dare you to point me to even one period in this century when the American government CUT discressionary spending- it has never happend!).

When Greenspan suggested that Social Security benefits were going to have to be cut, he was sounding an alarm about the deficit. O’Neill and Greenspan developed a tax plan with triggers, that curtailed tax breaks in the face of rising deficits. Bush never lets reality get in the way of helping his base (unless it is critical to reelection). If Bush actually wins reelection, he past behaviors virtually guarantee skyrocketing trade deficits, a lower standard of living for every American with continued destruction of our manufacturing base, labor laws, education systems, global human rights, market and environmental regulation, if not world peace. Is Iran next? This evildoer never let a fact disrupt his agenda. Of course his agenda must still face the electorate. For this reason he lies constantly. Does anyone remember what he pretended to be during the 2000 fake debates?

Bayviking, thats an interesting list there. The standard of living for americans will increase no matter who wins this election- as it has increased every decade since the depression ended. Our free market is simply more powerful than the bumbling of either Bush or Kerry.

As for “global human rights”, I though the democrats had given up on that! Weapon’s inspectors arent gonna protect anyone’s human rights- and neither is the U.N.

On the environment, despite the left’s rhetoric Bush has put in effective measures like the Clear Skies Initive (which people just attack cause its Bush’s plan- even though it uses the same mechanism to reduce polution as was used in the hugely succesful anti-acid rain program in the 1990s and the same on that is a central component of the Kyoto Protocals)- but who needs facts- cause we all know Bush hates the environment!

Bush is not a good president, but the level of hate and the plethora of charges hurled against him in every single area is laughable. If you cant think of even one policy of Bush’s that you like, to re-phrase Jeff Foxworthy, “you might be a partisan.”

Clinton’s “so called ordinary American” makes an average of 42,000 (if lucky enough to have a job) and that wage is increased by approximately 1percent a year - while the costs of housing, education, transportation and health care are increasing much faster than that. (And regarding heathcare, you mention medicare for the elderly - but there happens to be 43 million Americans who don’t qualify for either medicare or medicaid and who are not lucky enough to have a health insurance plan - which means that if an ordinary American gets seriously sick, he/she will go bankrupt trying to afford their medical treatments.)
Most Americans are also up to their ears in credit card and mortgage debt - in fact, debt for the average family has tripled in one generation. And last year a new record was set on personal bankruptcies.
There is no room to save for retirement with those kind of wages or with that kind of debt.
Add to this the fact that 3 million jobs have been lost in the last few years and that 15 million American workers are unemployed or working only part time because they can’t find full time work and you’ll see that the idea of saving for ones retirement is not really going to be an immediate priority.
And what about the fact that 35 million (eleven million of this number are children) Americans live in poverty? Living hand to mouth or paycheck to paycheck might make it kind of hard to build a decent stock portfolio, don’t you think?
If Social Security disappears the future is going to be very scary and bleak for the Average American and for the Poor American - as American Pundit mentioned, there was good reason to create Social Security - and we needed it as much then as we do now.
Only a Rich American would suggest otherwise.

Misha—

Funny I don’t think my spouse who is disabled and was getting Social Security benefits and living on her own before I met her, was worse off then if she wasn’t receiving Social Security in which case she would have been homeless. Or worse yet in a retirement home cared for by people making slight over minimum wage who care little for those they are charged with caring for. I shutter to think what condition she would be in now or even if she would be alive if it were not for bad ole Social Security. Which scenario is better for society over all…hum? And what of the millions of old people who depend on Social Security to help pay for those high cost prescription drugs the government shouldn’t price cap?

In the end as American Pundit pointed out we—meaning society—would pay one way or another. I personally would much rather afford or citizens some dignity I their waning years. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, or the few who wish to horde all of their cash for themselves.

And Clinton in his speech last night quoted from the Preamble to the Constitution when he stated

We The People in order to form a more prefect Union

What do those words mean to you? What it means to me is that “We The People” are supposed to be forging a more perfect union, and that mean looking out after our fellow citizens, not leaving them to fend for themselves if we can do something to help.

And where on Earth do you get this 12% figure from? Last time I looked Social Security is capped at $87,900 per person at .062% per paycheck or 6.2% for the year, for a grand total of $5,449 for the year permissible. If my income was that high (and it isn’t) that would be a small price to pay to ensure that we continue to “Form a More Perfect Union.”

Adrienne, what you fail to understand is that social security does not come from thin air. It comes out of the paycheck of the ordinary american making 42,000 a year. If he did not have to pay 12% of his income into social security week after week after week, he could afford to save for his retirement. Social security is just forcing every working person into a bad investment- how can everyone keep supporting it?

The irony is that social security screws poor people the most! A rich person can pay his 12% into social security and then invest his money in some mutual fund and get some real retirement savings. Meanwhile, the $42,000 dollar a year person has no money left to put into an investment that will give him a good return after the government fleaces him to pay into its social security scheme. Its just a bad system from every angle.

As for “Only a Rich American would suggest otherwise”- I am hardly rich and am actually in an amazing amount of debt right now (law school will do that to you). I do not know if I will be rich, but I do know I can do a better job with my own retirement than the government- be it as a multi-million dollar lawyer at a big firm, or a probono constitutional lawyer, fighting for people’s rights without making much money.

Misha—

I often wonder what America you live in. Exactly what kind of economy will fuel the American standard of living aft all the manufacturing jobs are gone, and the high tech service jobs are shipped overseas? Working at Walmart at just above minimum wage will not sustain the current American standard of living and neither will our free-market system. It depends on good paying jobs, and they my friend are disappearing…how is the free-market going to work when most Americans can’t afford to buy anything?

E.M.- As I have pointed out to you many, many times, those words were written into the constitution has a garantee of a country built on liberty, not on socialist interdependace. The constitution was created in response to redistribution schemes that were infecting the state legislatures, taking away people’s property rights. It is ironic that those same words can now be twisted into supporting more redistribution!

On our economy- it is in a transition period. Every decade or so, the Pat Buchanans of the world claim the world is coming down because what we are used to is changing. America is rightly moving away from manufactoring- it is our past. Our future is technology, and we are getting there. Obviously I cannot prove this to you now- so lets just check back in with each other in 15-20 years and see who is right.

As for my 12% number, I got it from here- http://www.lp.org/issues/social-security.html, and have read it in numerous other sources.

As for the situation of your wife- I have no problem with having a targeted program that helps disabled people who truely cannot help themselves. Social security’s meat and potatoes is the failed retirement system, but it does not mean that every single perosn who gets money from social security wouldnt get it under a much more narrow program designed for people who truely cant get themselves (by this I mean children, handicapped, mentally ill).

Misha,
Middle class income (when adjusted for inflation)has been stagnant for thirty years. Resourceful ambitous people have kept their household standards of living by sending wives to work. We are losing skilled jobs and gaining service jobs. Unlike farms, you can move factories. Like Clinton reminded us last night, the Chinese and Japanese are buying up the country with their trade surplus (He neglected to mention the Arabs ). If the service job trend continues, we won’t be able to buy foriegn goods. Bush hasn’t created all our problems, he is just making things worse. He simply refuses to acknowledge facts or admit error. What better examples than the Iraqi and Sudanese disasters or job losses.

The worldview, in my estimation, boils down to a very simple question that you must ask yourself: Do you believe that America is a team, or merely a collection of self-interested individuals?

I think most people want to believe America is a team. And any leader will tell you that a team is only as strong as its weakest link. This adage is true in sports, the military and business alike.

Under Clinton’s leadership, there is no arguing the fact that the weakest links became much stronger and our country as a whole became much stronger.

On an individual level, a small class of wealthy people “lost”. But from a utilitarian vantage point, American society as a whole won. In this case, the redistribution of wealth generated an increase in total welfare and was generally empowering rather than enabling. We did not create a welfare state, but rather a state in which the lower rungs were given the wherewithal to succeed — and they did.

Under the Bush regime we have reverted back to redistributing wealth into the hands of the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes. Our general welfare has decreased considerably.

I get sick of the rhetoric stating that redistributing wealth to the lower classes is tantamount to socialism. Listen, we know we live in a capitalistic society, and we all know that a purely capitalistic society will collapse upon itself. Some element of government control is needed.

So the real question isn’t capitalism vs. socialism, but rather: what is the appropriate mix of the two such that society’s utility is maximized? How can we generate the most amount of good for the most amount of people?

From what I’ve witnessed over the past twenty years, this utility seems to be maximized when we run surpluses and can invest in empowering bottom-up social programming (education, job re-training, etc.) rather than enabling social programming (welfare, affirmative action, etc.)

Misha, I agree with you that a certain element of personal responsibility is necessary. That is precisely why I favor bottom-up programming. It’s not enough to simply tell the lower and middle classes, “You figure it out yourself”. Their relative lack of resources would prevent them, as a whole, from being able to succeed and would create a perpetual cycle. It is better to help provide the resources so they can learn how to fish and then leave it up to them.

That is how a team improves.

Unfortunately, our current adminstration seems quite content to have two teams in this country and couldn’t really care less so long as their team is “winning”.

Misha -
I am more than willing to pay into Social Security so that those who are worse off than I am will have something to live off of when they are too old or too sick to work.
Social Security is a social contract that has allowed Americans to live a more civilized existence and I don’t think people realize how horrible it would be if it disappeared completely.
The only people who seem to think Social Security is a bad idea are those who are either too rich to understand the circumstances that other people live in (gated communities tend to make people out of touch) or those who are too hard-hearted to care that some will end up with nothing at all because they are too sick or too old.
As I mentioned, until wage increases go up to match the climbing rates of housing, education, transportation and healthcare, people will continue to go into debt - even that 12 percent you mentioned wouldn’t make much of a difference. And when we are talking about paying off an average medical bill for someone with no insurance, it wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever.

It’s easy to say that we should be able to look after ourselves. That we should be able to decide for a ourselves how we build our savings for retirement. But let’s say that we do get rid of Social Security, and you’ve taken that 12% and done your best and built up a very nice retirement fund. Suddenly you get sick and have to spend a month or more in the hospital. That retirement fund is now gutted by a six figure medical bill.

What do you do now? You can’t look to the government to help you out. You were supposed to know what was best for you. You were supposed to be responsible.

Or how about this.

You do you best to invest wisely but your broker decided to swindle you out of all your money and skips out of the country. Sure you could sue but does that help you pay the rent while the case drags through the courts?

Social Security is still necessary because we can’t account for everything that could happen, even if we do our best to save.

Misha—

I suppose our interpretation of the Constitution will forever differ. As for that targeted program, its call Social Security. I would hate to think that the be all and end all of human existence it to own property; pretty sad existence if you ask me, and not exactly in keeping with the Christian principles this country is supposed to be predicated on.

And I got my numbers from a tax expert…

V Edward-

You taking into account your employer’s matching contribution. That’s money that could go to increased salaries if not paid to Social Security.

Social Security is filled with good intentions and makes plenty of well meaning promises. The problem is, it is a Ponzi scheme and as such should be illegal under our commerce laws. It’s not the idea but rather the unintended consequences (some say intended but shortsighted) of the policy’s implementation that is so costly.

Compound that with the political suicide required to make meaningful reform once problems are encountered with “entitlements”, and you have great governmental programs like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. that are spiraling out of control with no end in sight. Greenspan made a call to act, but neither party seems able to step up to the plate. We need either a hero, a popular President with a strong bully pulpit, or a President like Clinton who is willing to trade his political ideals for his own survivability.

Excuse me for the error in the first line above. You are not taking into…..

> We believe Clinton’s so-called ordinary
> American is capable of saving for his own
> retirement

How is that possible when 25% of American families are making minimum wage? I’m not necessarily disputing your premise that people should save on their own, not the government, but the fact is that a huge number of Americans simply cannot.

I expect more than an idealistic response to the effect that, in a libertarian utopian high tide, all boats will rise.

-Cf

CF- think of social security as the government forcing you to invest 12% of your income into a retirement plan. Now grant for a moment what all economists I have read agree on- social security will give you signifigantly worse yield on your investment than buying into a low-risk mutual fund or other low-risk investment. As a result, no matter if you make minimum wage or 25 dollars an hour, your 12% are being put into a sub-optimal plan. That is, no matter how much or how little money you make, you are gonna have less at your retirement from being forced into social security, assuming you that you take responsibility and invest in your future on your own. As a result, a responsible person making minimum wage would retire better without social security than with it.

p.s. I am not disputing your facts, but I would like a source for that stat that 25% on american families are living on minimum wage. thanks.

p.p.s. Everyone who disagrees with me on these points can take heart in the fact that neither of the major party candidates are gonna do anyting to make my vision a reality, which was the major point of my post.

OK, let’s say you make responsible investments. What do you do when deceitful and crooked CEO’s (Enron) suck away your investments? Mutual funds got hit just as hard as individual investors when several large corporations had to restate their earnings. But maybe you’re confident that you won’t get taken by the Ken Lays of the world.

If 43 million can’t afford health insurance, and we give them back their soc. sec. payroll deduction, I guess they choose between paying broker fees for investing for retirement or buying health insurance. Sorry, it just does not equate.

Also, the contention that S.S. simply is unsustainable is a crock! There are a number of scenarios in which it can be sustainable.

One option that I am looking into that appears to have promise is S.S. deductions, instead of going into the Gov’t.’s general revenues while working, they go into the worker’s choice of banks or credit unions special S.S. protected accounts. In those accounts the worker and employer contributions earn a progressive fixed rate of interest based on the tiered accumulation sums. The higher the sum, the higher interest earned to a cap. After an age/amount cap is reached, the worker can elect to invest up to 50% of those funds in other earnings instruments like stocks, bonds and mutual funds. The government guarantees the savings and earnings in the fixed rate accounts.

This has the potential of increasing earnings on deductions, moves management of funds to the private sector (backed by the government against theft, embezzlement, or institutional bankruptcy) and removes the funding from the Government’s general revenues. Upon retirement, a set rate of repayment of contributions and earnings are released back to the worker on a monthly basis in the same manner as currently. If upon retirement age, the worker’s net assets not including their SS balance exceeds 1.5 million dollars, they do not qualify for drawing S.S. retirement funds unless and until their net assets drop below 1.5 million. Upon their death, their account balances revert back to a temporary government holding account where each year the funds are distributed to the Soc. Sec. administration which tracks all the funds and earnings just as now, and distributes them to the most needy of the retired.

Misha, sorry, in my haste I inexcusably couched a vaguely remembered number as if it was a concrete fact. I should have simply written “…when something like a quarter of American families can barely afford to stay afloat”. The real numbers are still quite startling, especially when you consider how low the poverty level is defined ($18,244 for a family of four including two kids).

Misha, your points make sense and I really don’t know enough about Social Security to yet have an opinion on it. I do know, however, that people who are trying to feed a family on $18k a year probably don’t know squat about investing nor do they have time to learn. I will try to learn more about this, though.

-Cf

Thank you for that reasonable response, CF. I know I wont change anyone’s mind on topics with a short post on watchblog, nor should I be able to. The best I can hope for is getting people to consider my positions seriously. I appriciate that you are doing so.

If he did not have to pay 12% of his income into social security week after week after week, he could afford to save for his retirement.

But he won’t, Misha. And then what do you have? You have exactly what I mentioned in my first post: he’s working until he’s useless, he ends up either starving to death or in publicly run poor houses. If he’s lucky, he has working children whom he can impose upon to feed and shelter him - at the expense of the grandkid’s education money.

So what do you do with these people who either won’t, or can’t, or don’t know how to invest their money? Do you force them to do it? That sounds like Social Security to me.

How are you going to solve that problem without either killing off those who are inept investors or creating a Social Security-like program?

AP- You put the position of social security perfectly! It is not about compassion, it is about paternalism- its about SS advocates thinking they know better than individuals how they should order their lives. Its about SS advocates saying “you know, you work yourself to the bone for this money- but we know how to spend your money FOR YOU better than you can spend it for yourself.” This paternalism is so pervasive that they are willing to force people into a system that yields them dimes on the dollar- only so they can save the way the majority wants them to, spend their money the way the majority thinks they should. I guess individual’s rights over their own lives only matter when you like the choices the people will make with their freedom.

It is the responsibility of adults to take care of themselves- you have to go find yourself a job, you have to go find yourself a place to live, you have to buy your own food and you have to save for your retirement. People in the middle on this issue (from Bush to Kerry) can continue to trust the federal government with your economic freedom, but I reject that philosophy. We are not “killing off” anyone by asking them to be responsible for their own lives, you are treating them like an adult.

Misha—

You lost me on the paternalism argument, it makes little sense. Once you S.S. check is distributed to you, there is no mandate attached dictating where you should spend the money. Please explain this theory a little further.

And it true that adults should be able to take care of themselves, and in a PERFECT world we all would be able to. But we do not live in perfect world. We live in a world full of unforeseen disease, mental illness, old age, accidents, criminals, birth defects, etc. etc. etc. all of which can prevent adults from taking care of themselves. And lets no discuss market downturns and such. To take your analogy to its logical conclusion, why have a society at all? Why not revert back to the days of the cave man when it was every man for himself; if you survived, so much the better, but if you didn’t, well you were worthless anyway and better off dead.

Most of the Libertarian doctrine makes little sense if held up to the light of reality, common sense, and compassion. Again, I am willing to forgo my 6% to ensure my fellow Americans are taken care of. I would like to think that I lived in an enlighten society, how about you?

BTW what would you do if you suddenly found yourself stricken with oh say Multiple Sclerosis at age 35, and could no longer muster the energy to work, and had to take a nap in the middle of day just to function, and could hardly walk? Would you, could you take care of yourself then? What would you want to government to do? Or say you worked for a company for 30 years and they promised you a pension, but then defaulted on your pension fund, laid you off, cut off your health insurance, and you have diabetes? What would you do, where would you turn as an adult? Would you turn to the government for help? Of course you wouldn’t because you are an adult and can fend for yourself!

Misha, what is this hyperbole about working oneself to the bone to pay for S.S.? Everyone I know works 40-45 hours per week, generally are happy to have a job, and I don’t see any skeletons on the job, so I think your reference to poor Americans killing themselves on the job just to support S.S. is a bit of a stretch and far too melodramatic.

Fact is, it was a great program, ask any one receiving benefits. And all of us here will one day be thankful for the benefits too barring premature exits. Oh, but even then our survivors may acquire some benefit.. shoot, just looks pretty good all the way around except for those who want to keep it for themselves and let our elderly become homeless and die early for lack of a safety net should a life of low wages or misfortune visit us.

Sorry, but your argument does appear heartless to me. If you want to revoke soc. sec., then offer another safety net for the unfortunate of our society who for a host of reasons no fault of their own would not have funds to maintain any degree of dignity or independence in their elderly years.

The net effect of just recalling S.S. is to commit large numbers of our elderly to early and miserable deaths in poverty or left in the hands of charities of which Charles Dickens has written extensively about in the good old days of the elymosenary system.

E.M.- let me explain my paternalism argument further, since I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Basically, AP’s post said that we need social security because many people do not invest wisely or at all (lets just focus on the retirement insurance aspect of SS, as that is the bulk of it). My point is that it is paternalistic for the government to say “since many of you will not invest wisely and some will not attempt to save your money at all, we are going to force you into social security.” Say a working poor person thought he could manage his affairs better without social security (as he likely would be able to, because social security is such a poor investment). Your paternalism tells him that he must invest in social security, not matter what he wants, no matter how much better he can make his retirement without social security. You just dont care- its “one size fits all.” I want some to please explain to me how that is supposed to be “compassionate” and how that is not just plain paternalism.

Your argument, E.M., is for welfare, not for social security. I could see you saying “I have no problem giving 6% of my income to make sure people in poverty get funding.” Now I would counter that you should juts give to private charity and not force other people who do not share your belief on where to best spend their money to pay into welfare. But social security is far worse than welfare- because you HURTING most people by voting for social security. You are hurting most working poor people. The average working poor person gets dimes on the dollar for the social security money they put in- that is money out of their pocket that they could spend on things that make them happy OR money they could invest in a mutual fund that would allow them to retire a lot more dignity than social security does.

That is my point about paternalism. You guys continue to support a system that forced working people into an inefficient retirement scheme with NO option of opting out. The only reason to do this is because the social security advocates have the arrogance to believe that they know how better to manage the retirement of other people than the people know themselves. Social security is not a redistribute program (those have their own moral problems, but that’s not the topic at hand)- it is forced retirement scheme that hurts most people who are forced into it. But because you guys believe that some people will invest unwisely, you sacrifice the welfare and freedom of the many to protect the few from themselves. That, my friends, its paternalism on stilts.

(I would like, you, E.M. to please address the above point that social security is not redistributive but rather just a forced retirement system that hurts most people who have to pay into it. I have yet to hear a reasoned answer as to why making most people buy into a system that makes most of them worse off is a good thing.)

David- you are right about my hyperbole- good catch. The rest of your post is devoid of facts, however. As i have pointed out repeatedly on watchblog, without refutation from anyone, most who are forced into social security is made worse yet. Yet I oppose a system that makes most people worse off- this makes me heartless. Sure thing.

It amazes me how the Democrats whine about the economic condition America is in when in fact our economy is in great shape! We are at war in TWO countries and we are still recovering from 9/11.

I have an idea, why don’t the fat cat Democrats show their financial report for the past 4 yrs and let’s just see how bad everything is!!

They blame the high gas prices on the war yet I remember in 1979 we could only buy gas on certain days. You could see cars backed up for 3 city blocks and we were only allowed to buy so many gallons. There was no war then.

The terrorists are pulling for Kerry to win because they know Bush will continue to hunt them down and kill them. The terrorists know just who they can and cannot push around. Kerry has the same bloodline as Clinton, Carter, Charic, and most other democrats.

Americans better think long and hard before they vote for Kerry.

I myself was neither republican nor Democrat.

I will vote Bush this time because for 8 yrs the democrats did nothing about the terrorists attacks. It was the democrats that put us in the Vietnam war and Vietnam was not a threat to our Nation. The terrorists are. Have a nice day.

No, Misha, you have not as I have seen, provided any evidence that there is a net loss to the American people as a result of S.S. There is a tremendous amount of good, lives saved, dignity preserved, love preserved between elderly partners, etc. etc. that must be calculated in any assessment of net gain/loss as a result of S.S.

the following exerpt is from the post I made perviously on social security, which I linked to in this very article:

“There is no doubt that if someone invested the money social security takes out of his paycheck the average worker, or even the poorest worker, would end up with far more money at retirement than social security will ever provide (if the worker invested in Bonds, they would have a significant increase, and considering the average growth of the stock market, the average low-wage worker would MORE THAN triple the amount of money they get from social security- see this article (http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html) for more detailed statistics). “

Misha—

I can where you are going with the paternalism argument, but I still dismiss it because I believe that S.S. helps society as a whole and does not hurt it. I’m with David, prove to me with concrete evidence that S.S. hurts society and then perhaps I’ll begin to see the validly of your argument. And while you are at it, please explain to me how my position amount to wanting and or supporting welfare. I consider S.S. ha hand up, not a hand out. Could S.S. be better, sure I believe it can, by making it a private government corporation and following David’s earlier model which make loads of sense. And I would even allow those who thought they could do better to opt out with the stipulation that once out, they are on their own, they can never come back, and they can never apply to the S.S. for benefits.

And one more thing, you never did answer my question(s); in case you forgot I shall pose them again:

I would like to think that I lived in an enlighten society, how about you?

BTW what would you do if you suddenly found yourself stricken with oh say Multiple Sclerosis at age 35, and could no longer muster the energy to work, and had to take a nap in the middle of day just to function, and could hardly walk? Would you, could you take care of yourself then? What would you want to government to do? Or say you worked for a company for 30 years and they promised you a pension, but then defaulted on your pension fund, laid you off, cut off your health insurance, and you have diabetes? What would you do, where would you turn as an adult? Would you turn to the government for help? Of course you wouldn’t because you are an adult and can fend for yourself!

Misha, your reply does not address the issue. There will be millions who for a host of reasons, would, even after investing the contributions (if involuntary) end up outliving the funds or losing the funds. Then, because we are a compassionate nation which does not like to see streets and alleys littered with dead, homeless elderly, the government would end up picking up the tab for them without compensating revenues generated by a system like S.S.

And the question is regarding NET gain or loss. All you have provided is evidence that some who invest the same contributions will reap greater savings. But, you have not addressed the elimination of the safety net which must be calculated into the equation for an assessment of net gain or loss to our society. The word SOCIAL is there for a reason - it is a program designed to enhance our society by elevating the quality of life and provide an insurance against catastrophe or unintended misfortune.

Venda wrote:
“It amazes me how the Democrats whine about the economic condition America is in when in fact our economy is in great shape! We are at war in TWO countries and we are still recovering from 9/11.”

Maybe _your_economic conditions are great, but its obvious to the average American that Dubya’s fiscal mismanagement and deficit spending is running this country into the ground. Right now we have a clear economic split - with the stock market, investment bankers, corporations, and some retailers doing great, while the rest of Americans are not - in fact we are struggling like never before.
And how is this for whining - just this morning I read that The White House is soon to announce that this year’s federal deficit will exceed $420 billion - a record figure that is a significant display of his mishandling of the economy.
More whining - Bush has set a new record for creating fewer jobs than any president in our history. During his time in office we have lost 3 million jobs due to corporate offshoring, the importation of foreign workers, and the exporting of work to skilled employees in India or less skilled employees in China or Mexico. Also, fiscal burdens at state and local levels have produced deficits which have lead to job losses. Furthermore, this instability has created a climate whereby (if you are not fired at your job) employers can now expect to get more production from American workers without having to pay any compensation whatsoever. And during these past four years Bush has done nothing to help average Americans who are now either unemployed or working only part time because they can’t find full time work (15 million Americans are currently in this position).

The federal reserve has warned us that eventually federal deficits and debt will drive up interest rates - which will futher slow the growth of the economy.
And then there are the tax cuts - which have surrendered 2.5 trillion in federal revenue (with about 40 percent of that money going to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers in America - which for some reason hasn’t “trickled down” to us yet).
All we do is whine, whine, whine…

Venda:
“I have an idea, why don’t the fat cat Democrats show their financial report for the past 4 yrs and let’s just see how bad everything is!!”

I’m no “fat cat”, but things must sure be going peachy for you if you don’t know a single person who has lost their job or some who aren’t really struggling right now.

Venda
“They blame the high gas prices on the war yet I remember in 1979 we could only buy gas on certain days. You could see cars backed up for 3 city blocks and we were only allowed to buy so many gallons. There was no war then.”

I don’t see your point here.

Venda:
“The terrorists are pulling for Kerry to win because they know Bush will continue to hunt them down and kill them. The terrorists know just who they can and cannot push around.”

How do you know so much about what these terrorists think? I think one of the major problems the intelligence community is facing is that they don’t know the first thing about how terrorists think.

Venda:
“Kerry has the same bloodline as Clinton, Carter, Charic, and most other democrats.”

Ah well, all human beings bloodlines converge if you go back far enough…

Venda:
“Americans better think long and hard before they vote for Kerry.
I myself was neither republican nor Democrat.”

After being so sure about what the terrorists think, I confess these two statements make me a little nervous.:D

Venda:
“I will vote Bush this time because for 8 yrs the democrats did nothing about the terrorists attacks.”

Clinton did attack Osama bin Laden - which is why the man has walked with a cane ever since. He didn’t kill him though, so I guess it doesn’t count…
And they did catch the guys who attacked the World Trade Center earlier.
And according to Richard Clarke, Clinton was obsessed with the whole topic of terrorism and did his best to warn Bush - who didn’t pay much attention, unfortunately.

Venda:
“It was the democrats that put us in the Vietnam war and Vietnam was not a threat to our Nation.”

Thats true, and it took a lot of American protest to put an end to that madness. It may take the same this time around - perhaps not enough of our servicemen and women have died in the war as of yet to bring the people out protesting in droves as they did back then.

Venda:
“The terrorists are.”

You’re right, and right now we need real fiscal responsibility in order to protect our security. I don’t trust Dubya to do that.

Venda:
“Have a nice day.”

I am having a good one, thanks. Same to you.

I’ve posted at length on the issue of social welfare in previous threads, but I thought I’d see if I could summarize it here:

1. Consolidate all social programs (including Social Security, etc.) into a single negative income tax, to be administered by the IRS.

2. Ensure, by way of the negative income tax, that no people who either work, are full-time students, or elderly, or handicapped, fall below the poverty level.

3. Set the poverty level as the one and only standard deduction on income tax, and tax FLATLY any income above that amount.

4. Remove all shelters or special deductions.

5. Tax businesses based on their income disparity ratio between the top executives and the line workers.

6. End corporate welfare. Yesterday.

If the above are implemented, the ones that may be left behind, still to deal with would be immensely fertile welfare families where the single parent simply refuses to get a job for whatever reason. I think the draconian approach needed for those cases would be to place the children in foster care, sterilize the parent, and then the single sterilized work-allergic parents can receive the same tiny welfare checks that people in such a situation would receive today—in amounts that certainly wouldn’t pay the bills. The steps up and out of their situation, and toward regaining custody of their children, would be to work. (They would still be sterilized, but there you are.)

It is funny how venda sees the terrorists determining how our politics function and who wins. Someone forgot to inform that this is a democracy, terrorists don’t determine crap here, the people of America and their chosen leaders do.

Hysterical hysteria!

Excellent fencing, Adrienne.

1. “I would like to think that I lived in an enlighten society, how about you?” This is very very complicated question. I think currently our society is enlightened in many ways, and not in others. Whether we are enlightened or not in my view depends on (1) the extent to which we protect people’s rights; (2) the extent to which we do not violate people’s rights. Now on (1) we still fail in many areas- especially in regard to the rights of unborn children and the rights of suspects in the war on terror. I do think we do pretty well on civil rights in general, although there could be improvements. On (2), I think we continue to violate people’s economic rights often- and social security is one such failure. I believe people should be able to choose how they want to spend money on their own retirement without government interference, and we are failing to be enlightened by thinking the majority has the right to take that fundamental decision away from individuals. I understand that many liberals view “enlightened society” by how much our government takes care of the poor- I do not share that worldview, which is why I am a libertarian on most issues. I believe enlightenment is the realization that the declaration of independence states a truth that we all have rights, both civil and economic, and that the majority should not take those rights away just because they can. I believe a country that treats adults as adults is far more enlightened than one that does not.

2. Your second quotation was about a list of horrors that could occur to me. First, if my company lied to me and broke our contract I would expect the government to enforce the contract, as required by the contract clause of the constitution. So that is an easy one. As for me getting an unexpected decease, that is why I would purchase catastrophe medical insurance along with making smart investments on my money. Now lets assume that I either failed to make such investments, or for whatever reason they went south. I would turn to my friends and family for help- hoping they could support me in my time in need. But that request would not be as a matter of right, it would be a request for charity and caring, that I could only expect if they, individually, wanted to help me. As for expecting it from my government. If the government had taken MY taxes to give other people such care, I would want them to give me back what I had earned by paying those taxes. But assuming there was no social security ect, and I had never given anything to the government, I would not turn to my government for help. I do not believe my fellow citizen are my servants, to be called upon whenever I am in need. I believe that if an individual person wanted to help me- or to give to a charity- they are an excellent person and should be commended. Yet I would not want my health insured by government force against the unwilling- that is against our founding principles.

3. Social security is not a hand up or a hand out. It is a bad retirement scheme that hurts almost everyone who gets put in it. The link I provided shows that the average investment yield is 3 times more than social security- how anyone can still support social security in the face of these obvious and undisputed facts is beyond me.

4. You said “I would even allow those who thought they could do better to opt out with the stipulation that once out, they are on their own, they can never come back, and they can never apply to the S.S. for benefits.” Great! That would not be perfect, but it would definitely satisfy me. The thing is, almost no person that knew the first thing about investment would stay in the program because social security, unless it is run exactly like a business with a profit motive and invested in the private market, would never give an average yield better than a safe, diversified mutual fund. But if you give people the freedom to either be in social security or not be in it, that would be wonderful and would all but defeat my paternalism charge. I am glad we have found at least this much common ground.

Well, thats all I have for now guys. I am headed out of town for about 5 days, so I wont be able to respond (I am going to Vegas with my girlfriend! Dont worry, I always donate all my poker winnings to charity, so I am not going there in the hopes to making any money :)). A pleasure as always, gentlemen.

adrienne, You seem to think Bush and the war on terror is to blame for the economy, I guess you for got 9/11 huh. Considering 9/11 and fighting in two countries these past 4 yrs we are doing good. I myself have never known a countries economy be this good during a war let alone having our business cripled by the terrorist attacks.

as far as work and foreign workers…. why don’t you check out Kerry’s wife’s company?? Why don’t you check out where she has spent millions of dollars. You would be shocked.

Hey david, I did not say the terrorists determined our politics. I said the terrorists are hoping Kerry wins. It is a known fact the Democrats are weak when it comes to foreign affairs.

How do I know what the terrorists think?? Common sense….their actions speak louder than words!!

I guess it just takes cowboys to get the job done.

Reagan put a stop to the evil empire and he built our defense back up. And cowboy Bush took care of the worlds most evil tyrant since hitler.

I myself think the Israeli people are important and saddam was having them killed. saddam was an evil terrorist and many americans do not want to face this fact.

They had much rather bash bush. You know, God’s word says the time will come when people will call the good men evil and the evil good.

Bush has been compared to hitler. How sick is that? People who think this way need a history lesson. Bush is bashed for killing the evil spawn of satan and he is called evil. Go figure.

Hey, Misha. I suck at investing. I don’t know anything about it. I actually lost money in the 90s.

I think you may be right that theoretically people could make more than what they get from Social Security. But I wouldn’t. Am I supposed to die homeless of starvation because I’m not good at picking the winning horse?

venda, I don’t even know why I’m bothering but,

adrienne, You seem to think Bush and the war on terror is to blame for the economy

No. It was the irresponsible tax cuts for the rich and the return to Reagan-era massive deficits. Bush had already lost half a million jobs before 9/11. And when Tom DeLay makes an idiotic statement like, “There is nothing more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes,” it doesn’t help investor confidence.

I said the terrorists are hoping Kerry wins.

I never get tired of this one,

An al Qaeda spokesman, quoted on the Arabic news Web site www.elaph.com, said the organization hoped George Bush would win re-election, “because he acts with force rather than wisdom or shrewdness, and it is his religious fanaticism that will rouse our (Islamic) nation, as has been shown. Being targeted by an enemy is what will wake us from our slumber.”

and,

The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades has decided to back incumbent George W. Bush instead of the Democratic contender John Kerry because it was not possible to find a leader, “more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom. Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.”

The terrorists have made it clear, they really like Dubya.

I guess it just takes cowboys to get the job done.

Haha! venda, when people speak of Bush as a cowboy, it’s metaphorical. He’s from Connecticut. I guarantee he’s never burned his hands on a rope.

You know, God’s word says the time will come when people will call the good men evil and the evil good.

Hmm… Didn’t you just call Bush good? Doesn’t that mean he’s evil? But then you knew God’s word, so maybe you called him good, knowing that it meant evil, in which case you would actually mean he’s good. But, knowing that I would read the passage in your message, you would know that I knew that if you said Bush was good… Now I’m all confused. What was your point?

Venda wrote:
“You seem to think Bush and the war on terror is to blame for the economy, I guess you for got 9/11 huh.”

How could any American ever forget 9/11?
I had a childhood friend die in the north tower that day - and I can assure you I will not forget him or the fact that he died at the age of forty on the uppermost floors of that building.
The problem with evoking 9/11 is that people keep pointing to that horrible day as justification for all of Dubya’s failings as a president. I cannot do that.

Venda:
“Considering 9/11 and fighting in two countries these past 4 yrs we are doing good.”

Like I said, you must be doing great - but many other Americans - the majority, in fact, are not. If you took the time to read anything I wrote about the economy in my previous post you should be able to see that as a nation our finances are in disarray. Even conservatives I know agree with this - because Dubya’s spending has been in no way _conservative_.
He is a bad manager and he is out of control - and if we are to protect ourselves at home we need fiscal responsibility and we need it _now_.

Venda:
“I myself have never known a countries economy be this good during a war let alone having our business cripled by the terrorist attacks.”

Well how nice it must be for you to be so upbeat - many others of us don’t share your view. In fact, a great many of us are _extremely angry_ at the way things have been going - all thanks to Dubya.
The war in Iraq didn’t even need to be fought because they had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked this country. Dubya lead us into this war on flimsy evidence from the intelligence community and by listening to a clown like Chalabi. Our soldiers are now saddled with fighting insurgents who believe they are only being patriotic and who want us out of their country. We are also saddled with the enormous cost of trying to rebuild Iraq after destroying everything by war. We have killed over 11 thousand of their people (which is a good way to produce new terrorists, don’t you think?) and over 900 of our own soldiers have died as a result of this unnecessary war. Over 5000 of our soldiers have lost arms and legs - and the war is a long way from being over. All because Dubya lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - so he could help out his oil company buddies and Haliburton and the hell with the rest of us.

Venda:
“as far as work and foreign workers…. why don’t you check out Kerry’s wife’s company?? Why don’t you check out where she has spent millions of dollars. You would be shocked.”

Fine, I’ll do that. And I suggest you go see
Farenheit 9/11 and then go do some reading up on the Bush’s involvment with the Carlisle group. You might also check out Dick Cheney’s insider trading, involvement with, and wrangling of big govt. contracts in Iraq for a company called Haliburton.

Venda:
“I did not say the terrorists determined our politics. I said the terrorists are hoping Kerry wins. It is a known fact the Democrats are weak when it comes to foreign affairs.”

I guess you must be watching a whole lot of Fox news?
Just four short years ago we were respected around the world when Bill Clinton was our president. He was not only good, he was _brilliant_ with forgeign affairs. He was also brilliant when it came to the economy. I am hoping that John Kerry will be similarly good with both.

Venda:
“How do I know what the terrorists think?? Common sense….their actions speak louder than words!!”

No, you don’t..
Their actions are totally unpredictable and merciless. We have no understanding of such a mentality because we live in a land of freedom and (up until 9/11, at least) relatively little fear. We have a lot to learn and we had better do it fast.

Venda:
“I guess it just takes cowboys to get the job done.”

That cowboy went AWOL from the National Guard. He’s had his chance to get things done and has blown it in every way possible. I think its time to give a New England Patriot a chance and see what he can do. After all, John Kerry (a rich kid who didn’t need to) went to Vietnam and was shot three times. You can be damn sure after that experience he won’t bring us into war on flimsy evidence.

Venda:
“Reagan put a stop to the evil empire and he built our defense back up.”

In my opinion, Reagan ranks among the worst presidents in our history - and he also didn’t know squat about how to manage the economy.

“And cowboy Bush took care of the worlds most evil tyrant since hitler.”

American soldiers - the dead, the cripled, and the multitude who are still there is who took out that tyrant - along with billions and billions of our tax dollars. And that AWOL cowboy rushed them into that war on
bulls**t and lies and without an exit strategy.

“I myself think the Israeli people are important and saddam was having them killed. saddam was an evil terrorist and many americans do not want to face this fact.”

The Palestinian people are fighting the Israeli’s, not the Iraqi’s. Both the Israelis and the Palestinian peoples are important and both deserve to have us help them, along with the rest of the world, to broker peace between them. Dubya has done nothing to make that happen during his term in office and the fighting there has escalated as a result of him acting like the Palestinian people are unimportant.
Saddam was a terrorist to his own people, but after the first Gulf War he had very little if any, weapons of mass destruction and posed no threat to this country. We should have let the UN weapons inspectors finish their job rather than letting Dubya, Dick Cheney and Haliburton rush us off to a needless war.

Venda:
“They had much rather bash bush.”

I know you’re in love with whole cowboy idea, but do you really think that people are as angry as they are for _no reason_?

“You know, God’s word says the time will come when people will call the good men evil and the evil good.”

You just look into that Carlisle group, okay?
As for your Book of Revelations quote I have to tell you that I choose not to live my life like the appocalypse is just around the corner - because what if you’re wrong? Then you’ve lived your whole life like its the end of the world - not healthy in my opinion.

Venda:
“Bush has been compared to hitler. How sick is that?”

Its silly, but people only exagerate that way because they are _really, really angry_ with his incompetance as a leader.

David R. Remer wrote:
“Excellent fencing, Adrienne.”

Thanks, your not so shabby yourself! :D

American Pundit wrote:
American Pundit wrote:
“Hmm… Didn’t you just call Bush good? Doesn’t that mean he’s evil? But then you knew God’s word, so maybe you called him good, knowing that it meant evil, in which case you would actually mean he’s good. But, knowing that I would read the passage in your message, you would know that I knew that if you said Bush was good… Now I’m all confused. What was your point?”

Brilliant! American Pundit sometimes you slay me!

If anyone is still interested, it may be of interest that no one can exist on what SS pays when you retire. Just not possible. So if anybody that thinks they can sit back and collect that whopping SS check when they reach 62, 65 or maybe 75 by the time they retire and have it pay for food and shelter they are in for a big surprise.

All I know is that something is broken here and if people do not figure out a way to supplement their SS payments when they retire, we as a country will definitely have a big problem. It should not be a surprise to anyone that the SS system is broken. And any attempt to repair it just may not work. It may be too late already.

I will be collecting in a few years and did not start thinking about my retirement income until right after 9/11 when I made some drastic career changes that forced me into giving it serious consideration. And WOW what a revelation to think that the lifestyle I once led would be drastically reduced if I had to depend solely on my SS payments. Quite by accident and in no part by any financial wizardry of my own, just hard work, I will be able to sustain something similar to a decent living. At least I will be able to keep a roof over my head and afford a few luxuries. But certainly not with my SS payment alone.

MAW, I don’t think you’re supposed to be able to support yourself in the manner in which you’ve become accustomed, solely on social security. It doesn’t, and shouldn’t, pay as much as a full-time job. Or should it?

I assume by “something is broken here”, you mean you’re not getting as much as you think you should.

And, BTW, thanks for making a point for me. Misha, maybe people could theoretically make more more money if they stopped paying into SS and invested on their own. But they mostly won’t. People could have done that before SS started, but they didn’t.

Sorry MAW, I left out something I was curious about. Based on how long you think you’ll be around, are you getting out of SS more or less than you paid in? Feel free to ignore the question if it’s too personal, I’m just curious.

AP,

No it is not too personal. I can only say that in this respect, if I had not given it to the Government to invest, I would have had more. So to me the Government should take what it needs to care for those that truly need it and the part that I get back when I retire should be at a higher rate of return. The logistics in handling something of this nature is a shift that most people are afraid to take. So I am not suggesting that it should be abolished. I am saying that it should be made better. It was a system developed a half a century ago and the world has changed but not the SSA.

You know that saying ‘if it aint broke, don’t fix it’ Well, I think this system is broke. So it needs to be fixed. The word ‘broke’ here is a double entendre

AP
To answer your question about whether I will be getting more or less than I put in. Hard to say. Depends on how long I live. But keep this in mind. If it were a government handled/sponsored system and it were privatized, with some sort of guarantee to ward against stock market slides and such, much the same as FICA insurance provides, I would be able to pass it on to my heirs. If I die the day I turn 62, I would have nothing to give them. And I have been paying into it my entire working life.

And in a lot of cases for those people that have lesser incomes, this may be the only thing they have to give them.

Just an opinion…

Good Posting in this thread. I enjoyed it.

if I had not given it to the Government to invest, I would have had more.

Theoretically. My IRA and 401k still aren’t worth what I put into them during the 90s, plus I’m a crappy investor. :)

So I am not suggesting that it should be abolished.

Careful there MAW. Keep bucking the party platform and Ann Coulter will call you a Communist and a traitor, and the GOP will give you the boot.

Seriously, though. You sound pretty moderate on this issue for a Republican - especially around here. Why don’t you guys reclaim your party? Get rid of yo-yos like DeLay, and Frist, and Hastert, and elect some people who are willing to concede that Democrats might have a valid point now and again, and then do some dealing. That’s how the Dems handled it when we were the majority, and it worked fairly well. We certainly weren’t at each other’s throats.

with some sort of guarantee to ward against stock market slides and such, much the same as FICA insurance provides,

Which is inevitable, if the 90s taught us anything. Then we’re faced with massive bailouts like Bush Sr.’s S&L fiasco.

But that’s a good point about passing it along.

AP- The point I was making in this post is that the so-called “moderates” (on economic issues) ARE in control of the republican party. You praise MAW for saying SS shouldnt be abolished- yet Bush, and the rest of the supposedly super-conservatives in washington believe the same thing! Those of us in the libertarian mold constantly chuckle when the left tries to pretend that the republicans are so right wing on economic issues. For example, Bush’s supposedly huge tax cut is a drop in the bucket compared to what we really want to see happen on taxes (see this short article for what I mean- http://www.badnarik.org/PressRoom/archive.php?p=685), and republican’s minor steps to loosen up Social security are similarly paultry. Furthemore, their steps on medicare are completely counterproductive and downright leftist. And lets not even mention the deficit…

If the republican party was half as conservative as you say on economic issues, they might garner my vote in novermber. Unfortunately, they are not.

Haha! Ok Misha, I guess it all depends on where you’re standing on the political scale. But take heart, the Republicans really do want to axe SS. They’re just moving slowly and obliquely because they realize the political consequences.

AP

Careful there MAW. Keep bucking the party platform and Ann Coulter will call you a Communist and a traitor, and the GOP will give you the boot.

There you go again trying to be a comedian. But it did give me my laugh for the day. Good for the endorphins you know. I would be worried but Ann does not even know I exist…

But I do think you have the GOP pegged wrong. They don’t want it abolished. They want it better. Odd, isn’t it? To want a system better! Whoda thunk it!

Get rid of yo-yos like DeLay, and Frist, and Hastert, and elect some people who are willing to concede that Democrats might have a valid point now and again, and then do some dealing.

Sounds like a good idea if you can help Californians get rid of Barbara Boxer (this year as a matter of fact) and Maxine Waters. Maybe we can work out a deal here.

Oh and I am a moderate. I thought you knew that because of my pro-life, stem cell research and other such views.

But I do think you have the GOP pegged wrong. They don’t want it abolished. They want it better.

Haha! MAW, when Bush says he wants to privatize Social Security, do you think that’s a code-word for strengthen the current system? I’m sure you don’t need to look up the word in the dictionary.

Bush’s entire economic policy is geared toward forcing the choice: raise taxes or cut services. In fact, that’s exactly the way Greenspan phrased it recently,

“Federal budget deficits could cause difficulties even in the relatively near term… Without corrective action, this development will put substantial pressure on our ability in coming years to provide even minimal government services while maintaining entitlement benefits at their current level without debilitating increases in tax rates.”

Given that Bush set up the choice, which way do you think he’ll swing?

BTW, Boxer rules! Feinstein I could do without. :)

Misha, the fundamental flaw of your constitutional argument against socialized policy, is the Constitution itself. The Constitution provides for taxation in order to provide for a national defense. Therefore, the Constitution provides for socialized programs which will benefit the general welfare of our nations peoples and preserve the integrity of our nation. By taxing all, even those who could afford to hire their own private army to defend their own interests, in order to provide a national defense for all, including those who cannot afford their own private armies, the Constitution directly provides for a socialized methodology for maintaining the integrity of our nation.

The integrity of our nation will not be preserved if too many are homeless, too many are jobless, too many are disenfranchised, too many are denied fairness and justice under the laws of our land. Thus, government sanctioned programs that function to reduce those factors that would create breeding grounds of civil disorder and even civil war, are sanctioned by example in the Constitution itself.

Stay on 128 south à route 24 (15 or 20 miles) à 495 south (turns into route 25) à follow signs to Falmouth (across Borne Bridger) à follow route 28 toward Falmouth à at second traffic circle (stay on route 28 toward Falmouth) à exit for route 151 (East) à Bally Mead golf courses on the right, Nickelodeon cinema on your right à Ranch road on your right

David, your reading of the constitution would extend our government from one of enumerated powers to one that can achieve any purpose whatsoever- in complete contradiction to our founding principles. The constitution lists very carefully that powers that congress has and the ends to which those powers can be used. Nowhere does it say that it can use them to create a socialized medicine scheme, a welfare scheme, a forced retirement plan scheme, or anything resembling those ideas.

For example, local crime can be put into the matrix that you just talked about in terms of keeping the nation whole and healthy, yet almost everyone grants that the federal government has no jurisdiction over local crime (one that is intrastate in nature), and that this is a power retained by the statse and the people under the 10th amendment of the United States constitution.

I know some find it seductive to have the federal government solve everyone problem they see- but that is simply not allowed under our constitution. We are a national government of limited, enumerated powers, and no amount of intellectual gymnastics can get around that fact.