Limbaugh: "Left Mobilizes to Politicize School Shooting"

[bronc_28]

Yes, money controls the system. More directly, money controls the flow of information --- buying ads costs money, buying airtime costs money, buying internet URLs and radio plugs costs money. The internet --- which most people just assume is free --- also costs money to operate, and is run largely by corporations with a profit motive. Running a campaign costs money, getting your name out there costs money, and defending yourself against allegations costs money --- it doesn't matter how genuine and good your position is, if the other guy is the one who gets to paint the public image of you. People only have whatever information you or your opponent release about yourself, and if your opponent is in control of what people know about you (because he or she has more money to spend disseminating that information), then you're at a severe disadvantage. You can point out that people vote, and therefore it's all the people's fault, but the people only vote based on the information they have, and if very rich people are spending billions of dollars disseminating conflicting information (and otherwise doing everything they can to obfuscate the issues), it makes it very difficult for a voter to make informed decisions.

Remember, 85% of campaigns are won by the candidate with more money and more endorsements:

And the reasons corporation spend so much money is stupid amount of power we have given to them.

I will agree however, that it is sad that the voting populace is so poorly educated in history and economics, that the election system has devolved to a popularity contest.

Libertarians tend to dismiss this aspect of the equation, because they think information is cheap and easy to come by --- like fundamentalist religious people, they are quick to say, "Alex Jones and Glenn Beck told you the truth, so why didn't you listen?", and if you don't pay unquestioning loyalty unto such personalities, then you're just "looking away from the truth." Another reason I despise libertarians as a whole --- they don't seem to give much of a flip about whether their information is genuine or not, they only care that it's what they want to hear. I'm a bit of a skeptic myself, and so even if I hear something I *want* to believe, I still feel the need to follow through and make sure it's real, and not just settle for a confirmation bias.

Good to know. I don't know who Alex Jones is, and Glenn Beck is a tool.

Get a feel for some nuance, bruh. Where did I say anything about politicians being the good guys, or deserving more power? They're just as much to blame for this (for taking donations from special interest groups, and pandering to them instead of the people) as corporations and special interest groups are.

what is bruh?
I agree, thats why I would rather have strong states, as the country was founded with, and existed until the early 1900's with. It is much easier to keep tabs on, and remove state politicians than federal.

There were several states in our union that had to pass amendments to their state constitutions because corporations owned the state government. Corporate corruption has been around as long as corporations and governments have existed; this predates America by a longshot.

Thats where it should happen, at the state level. Also many of these could have been fixed with small changes in our court system.

You are completely wrong. Social Security is paid for, in full, completely, by the Social Security tax levied off of every single working American's income tax payment, and off of a certain (low) percentage of corporate tax revenue. It is paid for beforehand, it takes no money from any other government program, and it has nothing to do with the deficit (don't believe me? Ask Ronald Reagan, that famed "liberal fascist" what-have-you).

LOL,

Really? Have you read the reports put out by the Social Security Administration? Also, you may want to look at the definition of a ponzi scheme, this is where your skepticism will really pay off.

There's your problem. "The Fiscal Cliff" is a Republican libertarian fantasy. It's a fiscal hill. All that will happen is some automatic defense spending cuts will go into effect (which is good --- none of those cuts actually come from support for troops or necessities, but rather wasteful spending on military contractors, for things like building planes that the Air Force didn't request and that won't be used), and some corporate tax rates will return to the levels they used to be at before Bush Jr. was elected; it's a fallacy that this money will be "taken out of the economy" because it's going towards higher taxes for corporations making over $200,000/year, which (according to libertarians and Republicans) is going towards social programs anyway, which primarily affect the middle class, which means the middle class will have increased purchasing power, which means the economy will be stronger. You've fallen for the sham hook, line and sinker:

Your right, what the news calls the fiscal cliff, isn't the real problem, the real problem comes when interest payment on the national debt become so high that we have to debase our currency further, and piss off our debtors.

I am not a believer in Keynes, I don't think taking money from someone, and giving it to someone else (especially when the government decides who deserves it more), is going to strengthen the economy.

Ah, the "perspective fallacy." In reality, what you point out here is a fundamental flaw of *any* heirarchical government, be it local, district, state, federal or international: the National government makes promises it can't deliver, so it borrows from foreign countries, okay; the Federal government makes promises at the state level that it can't deliver, so it borrows from other states; if we had states and no federal government, states would make decisions at the district level that it couldn't deliver, and so it would borrow from other districts, and the districts would have the same complaints about the state government that you have now about the federal government; if we had only districts, then the districts would make promises at the local and city level that it couldn't deliver, and it would just borrow from other local areas.

The Federal government would/could not make promises at the state level. and at the state level, if another state is stupid enough to make that loan, it will suffer too. Whereas right now, the Federal government is making promises (for votes) to people now, that my grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will have to pay for. How the hell is that moral? (and as an atheist,yes I believe in morals, there are dead set right and wrongs)

It's a valid criticism. But state government is subject to the same criticism.

Again, sorry to the OP, that this has gotten soooooo off topic.

[Static_Martyr]

And the reasons corporation spend so much money is stupid amount of power we have given to them.

"We" haven't given them much power, actually. The most beneficial events for corporations in recent American history have not been voted on by the populace, but rather ruled upon by a right-leaning SCOTUS, particularly the Citizens United ruling, which interprets currently-existing law in a way that it had not previously been interpreted --- that money equals protected free speech, and therefore corporations are allowed to spend an unlimited amount of money endorsing the candidate(s) of their choice, because that money amounts to their freedom of speech. This ruling alone --- which was NOT decided upon by the people, and over which in fact the people had ZERO say --- has done more to inject money into politics than almost anything that's happened in the last three or four decades.

what is bruh?
I agree, thats why I would rather have strong states, as the country was founded with, and existed until the early 1900's with. It is much easier to keep tabs on, and remove state politicians than federal.

"Bruh" is a slang term. And I don't want states to have the power to dwarf the Federal government. The racist '50s and '60s are a good indicator of that --- libertarians seem to forget that, for almost a full century after the civil war, there was an entire class of citizens that were labeled as property and denied basic human rights, and whenever contested, this was defended using cries of "state's rights" -- this case study in applied libertarian principle brings us to an interesting ideological dilemma for the conventional libertarian; if you oppose a federal mandate to the states with regard to public policy, then you oppose any *absolute* decree against institutionalized racism, and so you must leave the decision to the states as to whether they should allow segregation; if you accept this, then you must also accept that, inevitably, some states will choose to discriminate and segregate their populations. If you support this, then I at least give you kudos for being ideologically consistent. But if you have a moral or ethical conviction that no state should have the right to institutionalize racism, then you need a federal government (or similar body) to perform this duty.

Interestingly, proponents of institutionalized racism in the "segregation era" believed themselves to be "opposing tyranny," and resisting the encroaching powers of an over-reaching federal government.

Thats where it should happen, at the state level. Also many of these could have been fixed with small changes in our court system.

There needs to be a strong central Federal government to set the absolute baselines of the entire Union law --- laws against murder and theft, corruption, institutionalized racism; universal things that should be illegal throughout all states. These things should not be left up to states to "decide for themselves," because they are not things that should, in principle, be allowed anywhere in the union --- bribes, corruption and the spoils system; natural bugs in the system of which everyone is aware, and which nobody (with any sense) believes should not be addressed. Libertarians with special interests will say that "state's rights" are better --- that's because state regulations are easier to subvert, and they are not as widely-publicized, so they are easier to corrupt off the radar, as well. When a Federal law is contested, it is an issue of all the states, and is widely-publicized; when it happens in a single state's border, it's easier to keep the national interest out of it. That's how, for example, these Christian political groups have managed to squeeze all these anti-abortion laws off over the last decade or three without much publicity; they go state-by-state and buy off politicians and influence elections under the radar, in heavily-Christian areas where they can get away with it without much dissent.

That brings me to another prominent concern that I have with anti-federal libertarianism, as an atheist myself: anti-federalism basically means we have little to no means by which the federal government can protect the minority from the majority. I live in Alabama, a heavily-Christian state, and I am an atheist. If Alabama decides that we will not have abortions, we will mandate worship class as part of the public school program, and tax dollars will be used to construct churches to promote Christianity, then I have two main choices: (A) stay in Alabama and subject myself to a way of life that goes against my conscience (something that libertarians seem gravely opposed to, as it violates the "right to self/conscience"), or (B) leave and move to a state which is more in line with my beliefs (assuming, as libertarians are wont to do, that fortune permits such a place to exist). You could imagine a similar dilemma for a black man, in a state where they have decided that public segregation is OK. Whichever I choose, if this were to be implemented systematically, it would only serve to further splinter the union --- states would drift even farther apart along the political spectrum, creating a negative feedback loop where people with similar extreme ideas would flock to certain areas, creating an even more extreme bias in that region's politics, causing people with less extreme ideas to flee and people with more extreme ideas to immigrate, creating an even more extreme atmosphere, until eventually every state is adamantly polarized.

LOL,

Really? Have you read the reports put out by the Social Security Administration? Also, you may want to look at the definition of a ponzi scheme, this is where your skepticism will really pay off.

Do you know what a "ponzi scheme" is? I'd like your explanation of how Social Security is a ponzi scheme. That's a Tea Party meme that's been floating around for awhile now, and I'm curious if you actually understand what you're saying.

Since I'm confident you don't: a ponzi scheme is where you take money from a series of investors, promise a return to each one, and use the money from each successive investor to pay off the previous investors. It's a scheme because it works as long as it continues, but if it ever ceases, the most recent investors do not get paid off.

Social Security does not work like that. Social Security benefits come from the Social Security trust fund, which is funded by the Social Security tax collected as part of the payroll tax. SS is funded in full by this fund; benefits come from this fund, and before Congress stole all the money from the SS trust to help prop up unsustainable tax breaks for their rich libertarian and Republican CEO donors, SS was projected to pay out all benefits until 2032, based on what is in there right now on paper. So in itself, SS is not only not a ponzi scheme, it is the most efficient program in the entire federal government, completely paid-for in advance and well-funded. Libertarians hate it for exactly that reason --- it proves that a strong central government CAN do a good job of managing money and taking care of people who need it (SS took more than half of impoverished American seniors out of poverty when it was first implemented).

I am not a believer in Keynes, I don't think taking money from someone, and giving it to someone else (especially when the government decides who deserves it more), is going to strengthen the economy.

Then you oppose taxes in principle, because that's what a tax is -- the government levying money off of you and allocating it to another specified resource or department.

That's yet another issue I have with libertarianism: the idea that taxes (and other forms of government spending) weaken the economy (for some reason, this idea is most popular amongst FOX News viewers). It's an established economic principle that government spending can (and does) help the economy grow in times of crises, when the private sector is weakened by uncertainty. And a necessary component of government spending is taxes. If you raise taxes on those who are doing well (major corporations, high income earners) and lower them for people who are suffering (middle class/working class families), you give the government some leeway while also giving purchasing power back to people who previously had less.

Nobody's saying taxes are the Best Thing Ever, or that government spending is Always Good, but if you deny that they can help the economy, you're operating on a flawed model.

The Federal government would/could not make promises at the state level. and at the state level, if another state is stupid enough to make that loan, it will suffer too.

What exactly is it you're proposing? A union where the states each exist in a sort of vaccuum, where nothing they do is financially related to anything done in any other state? Are you advocating abolishing the federal government entirely? If not, how is what you're describing any different from a series of 50+ disconnected countries with loose political ties to one another?

[bronc_28]

"We" haven't given them much power, actually.corporations are allowed to spend an unlimited amount of money endorsing the candidate(s) of their choice, because that money amounts to their freedom of speech. This ruling alone --- which was NOT decided upon by the people, and over which in fact the people had ZERO say --- has done more to inject money into politics than almost anything that's happened in the last three or four decades.

You have missed my point entirely.

Why do corporations care enough to spend that money?

And I don't want states to have the power to dwarf the Federal government. The racist '50s and '60s are a good indicator of that --

While yes, the racist 50's and 60's were bad, you're argument that we need a big federal government to keep that from happening again is stupid. The Constitution has that covered. I know you'll argue something to the point that those documents were around when people could own other people, but the sins of yesterday, are just that. Humankind, for the most part, no longer believes in owning people. (unless your a female)

There needs to be a strong central Federal government to set the absolute baselines of the entire Union law

It hasn't been an issue allowing states to make their own laws since the beginning of this nation to now. In all reality, we don't have that strong a fed gov (probably not as strong as you like). It is just that the bulk of it's current spending is in areas that the founders, and the Constitution didn't intend.

Again I will say, that at the state level YOU have more power, more say, more information, and a better chance of having a voice in what happens, then at the federal level. I really can't understand what is so scary about that. It isn't like the states will suddenly have to make laws on murder, that is ALREADY done at the state level. If you murder someone in Alabama, who is not a federal employee, or a diplomat, the federal government isn't going to prosecute you.

That brings me to another prominent concern that I have with anti-federal libertarianism, as an atheist myself: anti-federalism basically means we have little to no means by which the federal government can protect the minority from the majority. I live in Alabama, a heavily-Christian state, and I am an atheist. If Alabama decides that we will not have abortions, we will mandate worship class as part of the public school program, and tax dollars will be used to construct churches to promote Christianity, then I have two main choices: (A) stay in Alabama and subject myself to a way of life that goes against my conscience (something that libertarians seem gravely opposed to, as it violates the "right to self/conscience"), or (B) leave and move to a state which is more in line with my beliefs /snip/ creating an even more extreme atmosphere, until eventually every state is adamantly polarized.

And on the flip side of that argument, how is it any better if Jeb Bush, or some other evangelical, comes into power and the big federal government goes bible banger? It works both ways. At least with strong states (as the founders intended, and the ONLY way the US Constitution would have been ratified) you have the ability to move. If your too lazy to leave a state that is diametrically opposed to you beliefs, then I'd argue you don't hold those beliefs very dear.

And again, all you have to do is look to history to see that it wouldn't create this utterly polarizing nation, the stronger fed is a (relatively) new thing .

I'm well aware of what a ponzi scheme is, see below

Since I'm confident you don't: a ponzi scheme is where you take money from a series of investors, promise a return to each one, and use the money from each successive investor to pay off the previous investors. It's a scheme because it works as long as it continues, but if it ever ceases, the most recent investors do not get paid off.

yup, except the notion that it never ceases, it does when you can no longer find, or there is not enough investors to keep the previous ones from pulling out. when that happens the whole house of cards collapses.

Social Security does not work like that. Social Security benefits come from the Social Security trust fund, which is funded by the Social Security tax collected as part of the payroll tax. SS is funded in full by this fund; benefits come from this fund, and before Congress stole all the money from the SS trust to help prop up unsustainable tax breaks for their rich libertarian and Republican CEO donors, SS was projected to pay out all benefits until 2032, based on what is in there right now on paper. So in itself, SS is not only not a ponzi scheme, it is the most efficient program in the entire federal government, completely paid-for in advance and well-funded. Libertarians hate it for exactly that reason --- it proves that a strong central government CAN do a good job of managing money and taking care of people who need it (SS took more than half of impoverished American seniors out of poverty when it was first implemented).

It works exactly like that, it relies (now) on there being more workers than retirees. At it's inception, it relied on you not living long enough to collect, and if you did collect, not for very long. The problem is we live longer, they increase their promises without regard to what you have paid in (and of course it isn't invested and growing), let you collect earlier, and you stay on it longer. No one can argue that seniors today, are getting FAR more dollars out than they paid in, and even if they were getting dollar for dollar, the strong federal government you love so much raided that fund we were supposed to trust, to pay for the votes they bought. The dollars being paid out now, ARE the dollars being collect from todays workers. Sure they keep a ledger to how much they have fleeced you, and as long as there are more workers, then retirees, it'll keep working. But it isn't possible to pay out more than you have taken in, without growing that deposit, and stay sound. I dont care if you believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, or the great pumpkin, there are TRUTHS in economics. Calling it the "most efficient program in the federal government" only serves to damn the federal government.

Then you oppose taxes in principle, because that's what a tax is -- the government levying money off of you and allocating it to another specified resource or department.

Not what I said, please re-read. I have no problem taxing to pay for LEGITIMATE functions of the fed.

Taxes are necessary, but taking money from one person, because government thinks SOMEONE else needs it more isnt going to strengthen the economy. Even if the federal government did the impossible, and managed to pay out dollar for dollar, the money it takes in transfer payments, how would that strengthen the economy? If you take a dollar from me to give to a poorer person, how does that strengthen an economy? But that isn't how it works, they are lucky to not lose 40 cents in the transfer.

And a necessary component of government spending is taxes. If you raise taxes on those who are doing well (major corporations, high income earners) and lower them for people who are suffering (middle class/working class families), you give the government some leeway while also giving purchasing power back to people who previously had less.

Corporations do not pay taxes. Taxes are rolled into the cost of goods produced, or profit margins are lowered. People who buy from those corporation, or their investors pay the taxes levied against a corporation.

I don't believe it is the role of the federal government to equalize purchasing power. And I fail to see a time when government spending has strengthened and economy, in our time it may have doomed it.

Nobody's saying taxes are the Best Thing Ever, or that government spending is Always Good, but if you deny that they can help the economy, you're operating on a flawed model.

I am saying that, and it's your ideas that are flawed. The only people helped buy government spending are THOSE people YOU lamented in your first paragraph. The people who are paid back for their contributions.

What exactly is it you're proposing? A union where the states each exist in a sort of vaccuum, where nothing they do is financially related to anything done in any other state? Are you advocating abolishing the federal government entirely? If not, how is what you're describing any different from a series of 50+ disconnected countries with loose political ties to one another?

Study history, understand the REASONS our country was made the way it is, The PRINCIPLES, and the REASONS for those principles. I am only arguing for a return to the founding documents, as they were written. Not a return to slavery, segregation. I don't want to outlaw gays, or make you go to church. We aren't far from the original model.

[Static_Martyr]

You have missed my point entirely.

Why do corporations care enough to spend that money?

Because buying a politician is one of the best investments you can make, with a several thousand percent return.

While yes, the racist 50's and 60's were bad, you're argument that we need a big federal government to keep that from happening again is stupid. The Constitution has that covered.

Just like the Constitution "had it covered" in the 50's and 60's, right?

I know you'll argue something to the point that those documents were around when people could own other people, but the sins of yesterday, are just that. Humankind, for the most part, no longer believes in owning people.

You're free to believe that history never repeats itself. But personally, I don't believe that matters of human rights should be left to majority whim, just as a matter of principle. We shouldn't even give states the opportunity to have that kind of power. The only way this can happen is if a strong central government has its hand in matters that concern constitutionality, to ascertain cooperation amongst all states.

It hasn't been an issue allowing states to make their own laws since the beginning of this nation to now.

Nobody's saying states shouldn't be able to make their own laws. Just that they shouldn't be able to override federal law. That's also in the constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." --Article 6, Clause 2, U.S. Constitution

In all reality, we don't have that strong a fed gov (probably not as strong as you like).

I disagree. The marijuana situation demonstrates exactly how powerful our federal government is (an issue where I disagree with the federal decision).

Again I will say, that at the state level YOU have more power, more say, more information, and a better chance of having a voice in what happens, then at the federal level. I really can't understand what is so scary about that.

I have no more say than you or anyone else does. I may have relatively more power at the state level (comparatively; in reality, it's not that much different), but so does everyone else. I live in Alabama. Nearly 30 percent of Alabama Republicans (the dominant party here) want to illegalize interracial marriage, and nearly 50 percent of Mississippi Republicans think it should be illegal. What is your proposed solution to that, should it be enacted at the state level? Do you think the federal government should regulate them and overturn the law? Or do you think they should be allowed to have those laws, in spite of the fact that they are prime examples of institutionalized racism? You've assured me that they won't happen, but what if they do? What is your solution?

You say "the stronger fed is a fairly new thing." So is a country where institutionalized racism is not accepted.

At least with strong states (as the founders intended, and the ONLY way the US Constitution would have been ratified) you have the ability to move. If your too lazy to leave a state that is diametrically opposed to you beliefs, then I'd argue you don't hold those beliefs very dear.

Taking for granted, of course, your assumption that there is somewhere you can move that is more in line with your beliefs.

It works exactly like that, it relies (now) on there being more workers than retirees. At it's inception, it relied on you not living long enough to collect, and if you did collect, not for very long. The problem is we live longer, they increase their promises without regard to what you have paid in (and of course it isn't invested and growing)

You pay into Social Security *your entire life,* and you get benefits back when you retire. It's really that simple. If there were four workers and fifty retirees, it wouldn't matter, because those retirees paid into Social Security their entire lives, and they are getting benefits based on what they paid into the system; that money isn't coming from new workers paying into the system. It's coming from what those retirees paid in, while they were working. The current workers are paying into their Social Security benefits for the future. Every year there is an increase in SS to pay for cost of living increases, and this is reflected both in the dollar amount paid in and in benefits paid out. Barring Obama's chained CPI cuts to SS, this will remain so.

The problem with SS is not the way it is run; it is the fact that Congress took all the money out of it and doesn't want to pay it back. SS works.

No one can argue that seniors today, are getting FAR more dollars out than they paid in

If you fail to take inflation and the value of the dollar into account, yes, it would seem that way.

Not what I said, please re-read. I have no problem taxing to pay for LEGITIMATE functions of the fed.

Who gets to decide what is "legitimate?" You? Or should we have a vote on it?

Oh wait.

Taxes are necessary, but taking money from one person, because government thinks SOMEONE else needs it more isnt going to strengthen the economy.

That's what the government does any time it levies any tax, ever. It takes money from one person or group and allocates it to another person or group whom it decides needs that money. That's how we pay for police and fire departments, the postal service, and the costs of running a government.

If you take a dollar from me to give to a poorer person, how does that strengthen an economy? But that isn't how it works, they are lucky to not lose 40 cents in the transfer.

If, hypothetically, you (and 500 million other Americans) are taxed five dollars out of a $300 pay check, and that money is used to ensure that senior citizens (who can no longer work and thus cannot provide for themselves) can purchase the food and medicine that they need to survive, this helps the economy because (A) every purchase strengthens the economy because it provides business, and (B) you are giving purchasing power to people who did not have it. The person making the $300 isn't going to suddenly stop spending money just because they now have $295 instead of $300; however, the person who has nothing (and has no way of getting anything) cannot spend money at all, so a measly monthly pension check (that's not even worth what a full-time employee could earn, in many cases) is the difference between life and death. So you are giving spending power to one group, while not taking it away in practicality from another.

I don't believe it is the role of the federal government to equalize purchasing power.

I don't, either. However, I do believe that it is the role of the federal government to provide assistance to those who cannot survive on their own (because, as libertarians are happy to demonstrate, they would not give you even five pennies if given the choice to do otherwise); if the government has no interest in whether or not its constituents can survive, then what interest do they have in condoning and accepting it?

And I fail to see a time when government spending has strengthened and economy

Civilian Conservation Corps (provided unskilled labor jobs to unemployed young men during a time of economic crises; gave spending power to those in poverty, in return for labor on government-owned and operated land, as well as providing roads and other public works).

Social Security (to this day, it is estimated to keep nearly 40 percent of Americans age 65 or older out of poverty).

The entire New Deal under FDR, really. It helped bring America out of the Great Depression following WWII. And it was done through government spending.

I am saying that, and it's your ideas that are flawed. The only people helped buy government spending are THOSE people YOU lamented in your first paragraph. The people who are paid back for their contributions.

And the people who have government jobs that pay their rent. And the beneficiaries of Social Security. And people who call the fire department or police department, or use the postal service (all of which are paid for by tax dollars). And people who can't work and need food stamps or supplementary income to make ends meet.

Study history, understand the REASONS our country was made the way it is, The PRINCIPLES, and the REASONS for those principles. I am only arguing for a return to the founding documents, as they were written. Not a return to slavery, segregation. I don't want to outlaw gays, or make you go to church. We aren't far from the original model.

I'm asking what YOU think. You libertarian folk love to tell me to "read the Constitution, learn the PRINCIPLES," etc., but when I do and I come to a different conclusion than you, you just tell me to go read it again. I already know what I think it says. I want to know what, exactly, you're advocating here, based on YOUR interpretation of those "PRINCIPLES."

[bronc_28]

Here we go again.

Just like the Constitution "had it covered" in the 50's and 60's, right?

Yes, it did. There was a mechanism for change.

How is your bigger government making things better for the thousands of women being trafficked here today?
Big government has stepped on our liberties with the war on drugs, how's that war going? (mind you, I'm not necessarily for drug legalization)

You're free to believe that history never repeats itself. But personally, I don't believe that matters of human rights should be left to majority whim, just as a matter of principle. We shouldn't even give states the opportunity to have that kind of power.

On the contrary, I do believe that history repeats itself, and historically speaking, we on on track to a dictatorship, as you continue to consolidate power in a stronger and stronger central government, and weaken the States.

The only way this can happen is if a strong central government has its hand in matters that concern constitutionality, to ascertain cooperation amongst all states.

That sentence is antithesis of the founding documents. need I quote the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I disagree. The marijuana situation demonstrates exactly how powerful our federal government is (an issue where I disagree with the federal decision).

and how much they have overstepped their bounds.

You say "the stronger fed is a fairly new thing." So is a country where institutionalized racism is not accepted.

big government fixed racism? wow! glad that's fixed!

The problem with SS is not the way it is run; it is the fact that Congress took all the money out of it and doesn't want to pay it back. SS works.

so you concede the money paid in is gone right?
Meaning the money paid out, comes directly from those paying in now. Not being invested, not locked away in some little magical box, with my name on it. And yes, fundamentally, it is the way it is being run, as a legal ponzi scheme, that is it's fatal flaw. It relied on the fact that we'd have a constantly growing base of "investors", which we dont, and it FAILED to take into account inflation.

If you fail to take inflation and the value of the dollar into account, yes, it would seem that way.

While both are the same, that is what YOU fail to take into account. Grandpa paid in say 6% of his salary, but his salary through his most productive years, would be squat compared to today. So 6% of squat is still squat. and even if that money wasn't spent by congress, it surely wouldn't have been invested, so it wouldn't have grown.

That's what the government does any time it levies any tax, ever. It takes money from one person or group and allocates it to another person or group whom it decides needs that money. That's how we pay for police and fire departments, the postal service, and the costs of running a government.

Thanks for the civics lesson, but that ISN'T the only thing it does with a tax. 60%+ of taxes collected dont go for services we all use. I am speaking of transfer payments, do you understand that term. it is where government doesn't levy a tax to pay for services we all use, rather takes money from person A, to give to person B, because for whatever reason, person B doesn't have what the government has decided was enough.

Do we need to help the poor, and elderly, of course. is that a role for the federal government, not according to the constitution. It is the perversion of a phrase, "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare", that is new.

If, hypothetically, you (and 500 million other Americans) are taxed five dollars out of a $300 pay check, and that money is used to ensure that senior citizens (who can no longer work and thus cannot provide for themselves) can purchase the food and medicine that they need to survive, this helps the economy because (A) every purchase strengthens the economy because it provides business, and (B) you are giving purchasing power to people who did not have it. The person making the $300 isn't going to suddenly stop spending money just because they now have $295 instead of $300; however, the person who has nothing (and has no way of getting anything) cannot spend money at all, so a measly monthly pension check (that's not even worth what a full-time employee could earn, in many cases) is the difference between life and death. So you are giving spending power to one group, while not taking it away in practicality from another.

first of all, there is just over 300 million people here (not all working)
5 out of 300 is low, SS is 6%. Fed taxes: 40% of those working pay a negative tax rate. (meaning their refund is larger than what was withheld from their paycheck) so for federal taxes, depending on your tax bracket, it may be $35 per $100.

But regardless, taking 1 dollar from one person, and giving it to another is no more beneficial to the economy.

then what interest do they have in condoning and accepting it?

WOW!
How about freedom, liberty, equal protection under the law?

The entire New Deal under FDR, really. It helped bring America out of the Great Depression following WWII. And it was done through government spending.

The new deal did not get us out of the depression. That is a fallacy, we were firmly in a depression until WW2.

I'm asking what YOU think. You libertarian folk love to tell me to "read the Constitution, learn the PRINCIPLES," etc., but when I do and I come to a different conclusion than you, you just tell me to go read it again. I already know what I think it says. I want to know what, exactly, you're advocating here, based on YOUR interpretation of those "PRINCIPLES."

And you socialists/communists like to say you read it differently.

ALL of the new powers the federal government have taken, come from the new definition of what was meant by "general welfare" and "interstate commerce". Otherwise why wasn't a SS-like program started from the beginning?

Moreover, I'm not against SS, or food stamps, if it were done at the state level

[Static_Martyr]

Yes, it did. There was a mechanism for change.

And yet, people didn't use it for hundreds of years. There was no *failsafe* in effect, in the event that the majority misused their powers and instituted discrimination upon the minority. There needs to be a way to protect the minority's inalienable from the majority --- you say "the constitution does this," but the constitution is just a document. It is the people who interpret it who put policies into place, and if those people misuse their power, then the constitution isn't going to jump up and say, "you guys stop it!"

How is your bigger government making things better for the thousands of women being trafficked here today?

The first real attempt to combat the crime of human trafficking across state boundaries (something that states had a difficult time doing properly given technical concerns regarding jurisdiction) when the FBI was formed in 1909, and the next year, the Mann Act was passed:

The first major expansion in Bureau jurisdiction came in June 1910 when the Mann ("White Slave") Act was passed, making it a crime to transport women over state lines for immoral purposes. It also provided a tool by which the federal government could investigate criminals who evaded state laws but had no other federal violations. Finch became Commissioner of White Slavery Act violations in 1912, and former Special Examiner A. Bruce Bielaski became the new Bureau of Investigation chief.

Big government has stepped on our liberties with the war on drugs, how's that war going? (mind you, I'm not necessarily for drug legalization)

I agree that the federal government shouldn't be prosecuting states for legalizing certain drugs. I also disagree with my city's decision to spend over $10,000 raising city employees' salaries, but I don't jump from that to "let's abolish the city government."

On the contrary, I do believe that history repeats itself, and historically speaking, we on on track to a dictatorship, as you continue to consolidate power in a stronger and stronger central government, and weaken the States.

That's what I can never get libertarians to understand; you guys seem to think that any power granted to the federal government is automatically an endorsement of federal absolutism/tyranny. I believe the federal government should have some jurisdiction over states to help combat certain crimes that are difficult and time-consuming for states to handle on their own (among other things). That doesn't mean I support forfeiting our civil rights (as much as you guys keep trying to tell me that the two are synonymous --- they aren't). We can argue on a case-by-case basis which federal actions are permissible and which ones aren't, but to make a sweeping judgment like "federalism = tyranny" is pretty much cause for me to disregard your argument out of hand.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yes. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. That implies that some powers are delegated to the states (and if you would read the main articles of the Constitution, you would realize that the powers of the federal government to do things like collect taxes and maintain a standing military are indeed outlined in the Constitution).

and how much they have overstepped their bounds.

So you acknowledge that they have bounds? And thus that they are justified to exist?

big government fixed racism? wow! glad that's fixed!

I'll take what we have today over restaurants that won't serve blacks and segregated schools and water fountains any day of the week. In today's world, you actually have recourse if someone discriminates against you in an important way. Unlike the libertarian '50s, where most white-owned businesses (read: most businesses) were "whites-only," and blacks were casually told by libertarian whites to "just go somewhere where blacks are allowed to serve, you have the right to choose where you eat," etc.

so you concede the money paid in is gone right?

If you stole $50 from me, I would agree that the money is "gone" in the sense that it is no longer with me. However, that does not imply that I am accepting or condoning your theft of my money.

Meaning the money paid out, comes directly from those paying in now.

No. Please go look this up on the official SS website. I've provided you with some links for your reading pleasure, so you can educate yourself better. I've already explained it once or twice, and I really don't have time to do it again.

Not being invested, not locked away in some little magical box, with my name on it.

Actually, it's supposed to be.

What you're saying here is akin to, if I had $500 in a savings account, and someone broke in and stole the $500; you're saying we should just close my savings account and forget the whole thing, instead of trying to find out what happened to my $500. I don't feel that this is the most reasonable course of action.

And yes, fundamentally, it is the way it is being run, as a legal ponzi scheme, that is it's fatal flaw.

SS is paid into by workers throughout their entire working lives, and those same workers collect those same benefits they paid in when they retire. That is not how a ponzi scheme works; the only reason there is a hole in the fund is because that money was taken away to provide for things that it was not intended to provide for. SS works. We just need to actually leave that money to be spent for its intended purpose.

It relied on the fact that we'd have a constantly growing base of "investors", which we dont, and it FAILED to take into account inflation.

It doesn't matter if there is only one worker and five people receiving benefits; that one worker is paying for *his or her* SS benefits for when he/she retires, and those receiving benefits are receiving the benefits that they paid in during their working lives.

Thanks for the civics lesson, but that ISN'T the only thing it does with a tax. 60%+ of taxes collected dont go for services we all use. I am speaking of transfer payments, do you understand that term. it is where government doesn't levy a tax to pay for services we all use, rather takes money from person A, to give to person B, because for whatever reason, person B doesn't have what the government has decided was enough.

You're going to have to be more specific. I'm not aware of any government program that operates in this way.

Do we need to help the poor, and elderly, of course. is that a role for the federal government, not according to the constitution. It is the perversion of a phrase, "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare", that is new.

What do you think the government is supposed to do to "promote the general welfare," if not help ensure that people who cannot provide for themselves are given the most basic means to survive? And if the government shouldn't be doing that, then how do you suppose we make sure those people aren't left out on the street by their families to die?

But regardless, taking 1 dollar from one person, and giving it to another is no more beneficial to the economy.

Even in the event of taxation, you are not "taking 1 dollar from one person and giving it to another." You are offering a service in return. Not everyone will utilize that service; that is their right and their decision to make.

WOW!
How about freedom, liberty, equal protection under the law?

If "freedom, liberty and equal protection" don't encompass a basic right to survival, then what good are they? Liberty doesn't do me any good if I'm starving to death. Lofty ideals are nice, but they're best kept in line with reality, not used as a substitute for it.

The new deal did not get us out of the depression. That is a fallacy, we were firmly in a depression until WW2.

I said it helped. And it did; the WPA and CCC weren't disbanded until 1943.

And you socialists/communists like to say you read it differently.

Yes. I do read it differently than you, obviously.

ALL of the new powers the federal government have taken, come from the new definition of what was meant by "general welfare" and "interstate commerce". Otherwise why wasn't a SS-like program started from the beginning?

So are you saying that we should go back to operating like we were in the Colonial days? Slavery included? Women not being able to vote or own property? Any other gems from those days we should reinstate?

[bronc_28]

And yet, people didn't use it for hundreds of years. There was no *failsafe* in effect, in the event that the majority misused their powers and instituted discrimination upon the minority. There needs to be a way to protect the minority's inalienable from the majority --- you say "the constitution does this," but the constitution is just a document. It is the people who interpret it who put policies into place, and if those people misuse their power, then the constitution isn't going to jump up and say, "you guys stop it!"

Any law is nothing more than a piece of paper. show me any law that has "jumped up and said stop it" It took a Rosa Parks, an MLK.

I agree that the federal government shouldn't be prosecuting states for legalizing certain drugs. I also disagree with my city's decision to spend over $10,000 raising city employees' salaries, but I don't jump from that to "let's abolish the city government."

I've never proposed abolishing either.

you guys seem to think that any power granted to the federal government is automatically an endorsement of federal absolutism/tyranny.

I do not believe our government is tyrannical, yet. It is just much harder for a small government to become tyrannical.

Yes. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. That implies that some powers are delegated to the states (and if you would read the main articles of the Constitution, you would realize that the powers of the federal government to do things like collect taxes and maintain a standing military are indeed outlined in the Constitution).

I have read them, have you? Which articles or amendment allows for Social Security, welfare, health care, food stamps, foreign aid, or the like?

I'll take what we have today over restaurants that won't serve blacks and segregated schools and water fountains any day of the week.

You were around during those times? And you believe that it took a big fed to fix that? That happened in spite of big government, and giving the credit to big government is a slap in the face of the many, white and black people who brought about the changes. I would argue that many of the quota like, or racial preference actions in use today have prolonged or exacerbated racism.

No. Please go look this up on the official SS website.--so you can educate yourself better

From their website http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pgm/FY...ummary_PAR.pdf
right now with 2.9 (per SS's website) people working to every recipient they take in 580.9 billion in taxes (SS) and pay out 593 billion in just SS payments, not including SSi or SSd. Overall they needed 91.6 billion from general fund taxes to meet their funding requirements. I realize people have paid into SS their whole (working) lives, but how is that different then Bernie Madolfs investors? The fact is, SS being paid into by today's workers IS being used to pay today's recipients, and they are coming up short RIGHT NOW. Thank god we're using general fund taxes now to cover the shortcomings. Oh, but our poor little "fiscal hill", means we're in deficit spending mode, and borrowing for that. And that doesn't take into account the changing demographics, which will continue to drop the 2.9:1 ratio.
How again is this not a ponzi scheme?

I will admit a mistake though, they have invested some...... in t-bills

Actually, it's supposed to be.

what ? invested, or locked up in a nice little box, with our name on it?
either way, invested in t-bills, is a failure on it's face, it's just another way of saying it'll come out of the general fund, and any other type of investment is akin to insider trading.
In a little box, with unicorns , and smiley faces, and of course my name on it, doesn't grow that money, to help accommodate inflation.

What you're saying here---I don't feel that this is the most reasonable course of action.

I'm saying SS is not a constitutional role of the federal government, and a bad idea in general. I'm suggesting a phase out of it. I'd wager that I am closer to receiving SS than you, yet for my kids, and grandkids sake I'd gladly forgo receiving a penny of the money taken from me (I never had a choice to pay in). to know we are off this path of fiscal insanity.

It doesn't matter if there is only one worker and five people receiving benefits

It does in a pozi scheme

that one worker is paying for *his or her* SS benefits for when he/she retires, and those receiving benefits are receiving the benefits that they paid in during their working lives.

not after the money is gone. Can you shit money? I cant. I'm not say an injustice hasn't been done, it has, by the very people YOU think should have MORE power! I am also not saying to just cut people off it. but the insanity has to end.

You're going to have to be more specific. I'm not aware of any government program that operates in this way.

income tax returns for starters. I know of many people who get tax credits, because of low wages, or kids, which make their federal income tax rate negative (meaning they receive more than was withheld back).
Food stamps etc.

What do you think the government is supposed to do to "promote the general welfare," if not help ensure that people who cannot provide for themselves are given the most basic means to survive? And if the government shouldn't be doing that, then how do you suppose we make sure those people aren't left out on the street by their families to die?

that is the role of family first, friends second, community/churches/organizations third, city fourth, then state(if the voters of that state deem it so.

If "freedom, liberty and equal protection" don't encompass a basic right to survival, then what good are they? Liberty doesn't do me any good if I'm starving to death. Lofty ideals are nice, but they're best kept in line with reality, not used as a substitute for it.

It is YOUR responsibility to keep from starving, I am not you keeper. Governments job is to ensure I dont kick you ass, and take you food, which causes you to starve. If I don't have to work to provide for my own survival, why work? Furthermore, government can only give what it has first TAKEN from someone else, so therefore, you say that others have a right to the fruits of MY labor? That, in my opinion, induces a moral hazard, and goes against the very nature of human rights.

I said it helped. And it did; the WPA and CCC weren't disbanded until 1943.

I'll only agree to disagree. It did help keep people fed, and in a way better than the modern food stamp program.

So are you saying that we should go back to operating like we were in the Colonial days? Slavery included? Women not being able to vote or own property? Any other gems from those days we should reinstate?

SURE!, and bring back the dinosaurs while your at it!
Of course not, but I dont agree that a big fed fixed those. Moreover, I'm not against a federal government, just one restrained one. We are a Republic, we should act like one

[Static_Martyr]

Any law is nothing more than a piece of paper. show me any law that has "jumped up and said stop it"

Exactly. So we're in agreement.

I've never proposed abolishing either.

So then you're okay with the federal government having power over the states in some areas?

I do not believe our government is tyrannical, yet. It is just much harder for a small government to become tyrannical.

It's also easier for a small government to be ousted from another country, or coup-d'etat-ed from within. But I'm not really interested in arguing the trade-offs and subjective differences between fed and state government; that's another conversation altogether.

I have read them, have you? Which articles or amendment allows for Social Security, welfare, health care, food stamps, foreign aid, or the like?

Which part of the Constitution explicitly tells us what we can and can't spend tax money on? I can't seem to find that part.

You were around during those times? And you believe that it took a big fed to fix that? That happened in spite of big government, and giving the credit to big government is a slap in the face of the many, white and black people who brought about the changes. I would argue that many of the quota like, or racial preference actions in use today have prolonged or exacerbated racism.

You weren't around then, either, so that is really pointless to say.

Anyway, you seem to be ignoring the fact that, were it up to a vote today, many southern states would make a surprising effort to legalize discrimination. Rand Paul, an actual senator, says that we should repeal part of the Civil Rights Act because your right to decide that blacks aren't worthy to patronize your business is more important than those peoples' rights to fair treatment under the system, and he actually portrays himself as some sort of principled constitutional hero for saying so. And his father Ron Paul was known back in the day for opposing desegregation laws.

Granted, they both claim to have justifications for doing so, but that's no different than Bull Connor and the rest of the anti-integration crowd from the '60s saying that "state's rights" meant that the government couldn't force schools to integrate, or prevent the city from having racially segregated bathrooms and water fountains. It all boils down to, "some people think that we should legalize discrimination." And if left to their own devices, there are a surprising number of (mostly southern) states who would do exactly that.

right now with 2.9 (per SS's website) people working to every recipient they take in 580.9 billion in taxes (SS) and pay out 593 billion in just SS payments, not including SSi or SSd

You're not counting what those recipients paid into the fund all their working lives. Seniors now are collecting income that has been paid into the system prior; if you take what today's workers are paying into the system, you can't get a real estimate of how much it's costing them until they retire.

You're taking today's pay-ins, and comparing it to the pay-outs of people who don't pay in anymore. That's dishonest at best, outright deceitful at worst. It's based on the assumption that what's owed to the SS fund isn't actually owed. Getting rid of the national debt would necessarily have to involve paying back the SS trust.

I realize people have paid into SS their whole (working) lives, but how is that different then Bernie Madolfs investors?

Because they get back based on what they paid in. Not more or less. It just seems different because it's factored to account for inflation.

The fact is, SS being paid into by today's workers IS being used to pay today's recipients, and they are coming up short RIGHT NOW.

...because Congress stole the money out of the fund. Congress owes that money back to SS --- nearly 19 percent of the national debt is owed to the SS trust fund. SS generated so much money that it was milked for that money by the government to use for other purposes; that's how efficient it is.

We seem to be in agreement that the money was robbed from the trust fund. Where we differ is that I think it should be replaced, and from what I can tell, you don't think we should honor that debt.

what ? invested, or locked up in a nice little box, with our name on it?

No, it's supposed to be in a trust fund where it isn't touched except to use for the purposes for which it is collected (to pay benefits).

I'm saying SS is not a constitutional role of the federal government, and a bad idea in general.

And I'm saying you're wrong on both counts; Social Security is actually very efficient and it keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty. I'd say that's a pretty cool thing. And the Constitution doesn't say we should have a fire department, either, and yet we do. So should we abolish the fire department as well?

I'm suggesting a phase out of it. I'd wager that I am closer to receiving SS than you, yet for my kids, and grandkids sake I'd gladly forgo receiving a penny of the money taken from me (I never had a choice to pay in). to know we are off this path of fiscal insanity.

The system by itself doesn't work. We know this because we saw how the system worked before Social Security, and things were shit. People fall through the cracks without SS. And I see no reason why we shouldn't be determined to save it for our children's sake, and force the government to pay back the SS trust what it owes.

It does in a pozi scheme

You obviously don't know what a ponzi scheme is, then. A ponzi scheme is where payins result in PROFITS, or returns in excess of pay-ins. That's the reason the math doesn't work in a ponzi scheme, because more is coming out than is going in. That's not the case with SS.

I'm not say an injustice hasn't been done, it has, by the very people YOU think should have MORE power! I am also not saying to just cut people off it. but the insanity has to end.

When did I say I wanted Congress to have more power? I can't seem to find that quote.

Also, yes, I agree, the insanity must end. Congress needs to pay back the money it stole from the SS trust fund so we can continue to have SS sustainably provide income to people who can't provide for themselves. It's the most efficient government program we have.

that is the role of family first, friends second, community/churches/organizations third, city fourth, then state(if the voters of that state deem it so.

Ah, that weak-ass argument. "You have to rely on your social ties, or else just starve to death." I got news for ya, bruh, the people DID speak, and they said they want to keep Social Security. 71% of Americans oppose cutting Social Security. The states have spoken, in favor of Social Security.

It is YOUR responsibility to keep from starving, I am not you keeper. Governments job is to ensure I dont kick you ass, and take you food, which causes you to starve.

I never asked you to keep me from starving, I can take care of myself. However, do you really believe that people who have no way to provide for themselves, and have no family or friends with the means to care for them, should just be left to die because, well, fuck, "it's my money?" Is that really what you're saying? If you're really that apathetic, then fine, but 71% of America disagrees with you, including myself.

If I don't have to work to provide for my own survival, why work?

Benefits are not just handed out like candy. They're not just for anyone who doesn't want to work; you have to qualify for them. They're for people who can't work, who are sick, retired, injured, pregnant, etc. I'm not going to waste any more effort going over this a 5th or 6th time. You talk as if anyone can just say, "sign me up, I want to collect SS benefits today!"

Furthermore, government can only give what it has first TAKEN from someone else, so therefore, you say that others have a right to the fruits of MY labor?

Yep, that's how taxes work. The government takes a cut of money from transactions between you and your employer (or you and someone else you're having a transaction with), and allocates it somewhere else.

You keep saying you're okay with some taxes, but then your reasoning here necessarily includes all taxes of any kind (as taxes are money which is taken from you by the government and given to some other person or group to manage). The very concept of government (state OR federal) is predicated on the idea that some money has to go to the cost of operating a government. It's not simply taking money, but rather a cost of providing a service to you. You just have to wait your turn to receive the service, as opposed to taking it any time you want. And if YOU were poor, or injured, or sick or retired, and you needed that money, you would qualify as well.

[bronc_28]

Exactly. So we're in agreement.

Somehow I doubt it, but maybe.

So then you're okay with the federal government having power over the states in some areas?

Of course, as the constitution mandates

Which part of the Constitution explicitly tells us what we can and can't spend tax money on? I can't seem to find that part.

Article 1 section 8

Anyway, you seem to be ignoring the fact that, were it up to a vote today, many southern states would make a surprising effort to legalize discrimination.

And I am sure that with a cursory look I could find a number of douchebags who think 9/11 was an inside job, that Obama is a Kenyan, that we never landed on the moon, etc. but that isn't representative of the majority of people, let alone, those in the south.

It all boils down to, "some people think that we should legalize discrimination." And if left to their own devices, there are a surprising number of (mostly southern) states who would do exactly that.

I have more faith in people than you apparently.

You're not counting what those recipients paid into the fund all their working lives.

I cant count what is no longer there.

Because they get back based on what they paid in. Not more or less. It just seems different because it's factored to account for inflation.

Again, that money is gone.

We seem to be in agreement that the money was robbed from the trust fund. Where we differ is that I think it should be replaced, and from what I can tell, you don't think we should honor that debt.

How do we do that? I am all for honoring all of our debts, but how? What would your budget proposals be? All your programs are already costing more than can be paid for without borrowing. Herein lies the real Fiscal Cliff. I'd love to feed and clothe everybody, but the bill comes do someday, and these programs you so heartily defend below, will not allow the servicing of debt (SS included in there). We cannot get away from deficit spending, how the hell do you pay back the debt.

And the Constitution doesn't say we should have a fire department, either, and yet we do. So should we abolish the fire department as well?

Your right. See, republic-ism works, big fed didn't need to step in and force the states to have police forces, fire departments, hospitals, or even schools. WOW, how the hell did that happen?

A ponzi scheme is where payins result in PROFITS, or returns in excess of pay-ins.

There are no profits in a ponzi scheme. (sorta like SS )

Also, yes, I agree, the insanity must end. Congress needs to pay back the money it stole

I will start holding my breath

Ah, that weak-ass argument. "You have to rely on your social ties, or else just starve to death." I got news for ya, bruh, the people DID speak, and they said they want to keep Social Security.

So it's right when 71% of the people want to take my money, but NOT right when a majority (your words) want to be free to associate with who they want?
It isn't surprising 71% voted for it, see the Alexander Tyler quote on page 6. And again I only argue that it isn't right at the federal level, state level is a different story.

I never asked you to keep me from starving, I can take care of myself. However, do you really believe that people who have no way to provide for themselves, and have no family or friends with the means to care for them, should just be left to die because, well, fuck, "it's my money?" Is that really what you're saying? If you're really that apathetic, then fine, but 71% of America disagrees with you, including myself.

1- that isn't apathy
2- again 71% must make it right if YOU agree?
3- No, I don't think they be left to die, you just don't like where I feel their help should come from, and you fail to recognize that many could provide for themselves but choose not to.

Benefits are not just handed out like candy.

you'd be surprised

They're not just for anyone who doesn't want to work; you have to qualify for them. They're for people who can't work, who are sick, retired, injured, pregnant, etc. I'm not going to waste any more effort going over this a 5th or 6th time. You talk as if anyone can just say, "sign me up, I want to collect SS benefits today!"

Oh if only it actually worked that way.

You keep saying you're okay with some taxes, but then your reasoning here necessarily includes all taxes of any kind (as taxes are money which is taken from you by the government and given to some other person or group to manage). The very concept of government (state OR federal) is predicated on the idea that some money has to go to the cost of operating a government.

My arguments have been only at the federal level, but I am fine with taxes going to pay for the services the federal government is supposed to provide, but not transfer payments.

It's not simply taking money, but rather a cost of providing a service to you. You just have to wait your turn to receive the service, as opposed to taking it any time you want. And if YOU were poor, or injured, or sick or retired, and you needed that money, you would qualify as well.

It is no service to me, to take my money, and give it to some dead beat, who can work, but chooses not to. And like you, I will take care of myself, and my family if need be, thank you very much. Unlike much of society, I find it immoral to expect from others (be it through taxes or otherwise) what I can do for myself. Does that mean I am against helping those who need it, of course not.

[Static_Martyr]

Article 1 section 8

You mean the Article 1 Section 8 that says:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense AND GENERAL WELFARE of the United states; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:"

--US Constitution, Article 1/Section 8 (emphasis mine)

Social Security fits all of those definitions:

-) It's collected via funding from the payroll tax ("Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes");

-) It provides for the general welfare of any US citizen who is of retirement age ("Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes to...provide for the...general welfare of the United States");

-) It's a federal law, and thus uniform throughout the entire US ("all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States")

And I am sure that with a cursory look I could find a number of douchebags who think 9/11 was an inside job, that Obama is a Kenyan, that we never landed on the moon, etc. but that isn't representative of the majority of people, let alone, those in the south.

The public record suggests otherwise.

I have more faith in people than you apparently.

It's not a matter of faith, it's about listening to what people say they want and watching how they act when given the chance, and making a judgment of how people will act in the future based on how they have acted in the past.

I cant count what is no longer there.

You can, however, acknowledge that a debt is there, and so in practice the SS program is actually the most efficiently-run program in the country. If people would stop stealing from it.

What you're saying is no different than if you had managed to save $500 over a year, and then I broke into your savings account and stole all of your savings, and then someone else accused you of being "bad at managing money," while asserting that I have a right to keep what I stole from you.

Again, that money is gone.

That's only a problem if you believe that we should not honor our debts. And, oh look! It's that pesky Constitution again, saying that the United States is Constitutionally bound to honor all national debts:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." --US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 4

How do we do that? I am all for honoring all of our debts, but how? What would your budget proposals be? All your programs are already costing more than can be paid for without borrowing.

First off, how is another discussion; what's important is that we agree that the debt should be honored. And the Constitution clearly states that it must be.

That said....during a time of economic crisis, government spending should be expanded until the private sector stabilizes and the middle class is strengthened. During periods of economic stability, it is safer to cut taxes and spending; during periods of economic tribulation, spending is necessary because spending drives the economy --- history has shown that tax cuts do not spur job growth, while direct government investment does (big shock, I know). Remember, at the end of Clinton's second term (during which we had a relatively progressive tax policy), we were actually operating in a surplus, not a deficit. That's the first step; you have to balance the budget to repay the debt. And this article from several years back demonstrates exactly how positive the projections for the economy were, before Bush blew the entire surplus on unsustainable tax cuts which he insisted could be covered by the surplus, and instead ate up so much of our budget that they're threatening to cut SS, which doesn't even affect the deficit.

The basic problem with libertarian economic philosophy is that it asserts that if we just give all of our extra money to the richest American business owners, we can trust them to "do the right thing" and enact the perfect business model that will, someday down the road, make things better for all of us. However, those of us who actually pay more in taxes (the middle class) would prefer that our money be invested directly into job creation, so that we can provide a basic living for ourselves --- not funneled into profit machines like Wall Street that are designed solely to take money out of mainstream circulation so that it doesn't benefit the economy at all.

Herein lies the real Fiscal Cliff. I'd love to feed and clothe everybody, but the bill comes do someday, and these programs you so heartily defend below, will not allow the servicing of debt (SS included in there). We cannot get away from deficit spending, how the hell do you pay back the debt.p

Even Reagan agreed, cutting SS will not reduce the deficit, as the two are unrelated.

Your right. See, republic-ism works, big fed didn't need to step in and force the states to have police forces, fire departments, hospitals, or even schools. WOW, how the hell did that happen?

So you agree that we can do things even if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say we can? I understand enumerated powers, but there is such a thing as an overly-zealous interpretation of those powers. The Bill of Rights is a living document, meaning it can be amended; if Congress has no powers outside of those explicitly named in the Constitution [meaning not in principle, but in terms of specific policy names], then there shouldn't be any more than 10 amendments.

There are no profits in a ponzi scheme. (sorta like SS )

Yes, but there are the illusion of profits. Such as, I paid something in and I got more back out of it. In SS, I get back because I paid in, but I don't make money. I just get back what I paid in.

I will start holding my breath

Well let's just sit around and do nothing, then :/

So it's right when 71% of the people want to take my money, but NOT right when a majority (your words) want to be free to associate with who they want?

The Congress has a Constitutional right to "take your money." It's called taxation and it's in the Constitution. End of story.

It isn't surprising 71% voted for it, see the Alexander Tyler quote on page 6. And again I only argue that it isn't right at the federal level, state level is a different story.

If you believe it's a "ponzi scheme," why would you be okay with it at any level?

1- that isn't apathy

Then what is it?

2- again 71% must make it right if YOU agree?

You're the one who reduced it to a matter of popular vote. I only pointed out that we've already had that discusion, and the majority agrees that SS is a good thing.

3- No, I don't think they be left to die, you just don't like where I feel their help should come from, and you fail to recognize that many could provide for themselves but choose not to.

No, I don't have a problem with where you feel their help should come from, actually. I just think there should be a backup plan in the event that someone is old, or doesn't have an extended family/community to take care of them, and has no choice other than to slip into poverty and die homeless or get some help.

I wish I could get you to address that point, instead of reading something else into what I'm saying.

you'd be surprised

Provide some evidence. Where can I go right now and get signed up for SS benefits legally, without committing fraud?

Oh if only it actually worked that way.

Provide some evidence.

My arguments have been only at the federal level, but I am fine with taxes going to pay for the services the federal government is supposed to provide, but not transfer payments.

That's good, because Social Security is a service the federal government provides. So I guess you're okay with that, then?

It is no service to me, to take my money, and give it to some dead beat, who can work, but chooses not to.

So retired citizens are deadbeats? Military personnel who have been honorably discharged because of injuries, trauma or retirement are deadbeats? The physically disabled are deadbeats? I have to say I disagree.

Unlike much of society, I find it immoral to expect from others (be it through taxes or otherwise) what I can do for myself.

That's your problem, is your entire view is predicated on a fundamental ideological misrepresentation of what SS stands for. It's not for "expecting others to do what I can do for myself." It's a matter of having a public option to save for my retirement, which I can then use when I retire in the event that I don't have wealthy relatives to help support me.

It seems that if you could somehow get past your uninformed snap judgments about people you don't know, then you would actually not have much of a problem with Social Security.