Whew! It’s a good thing this section is labeled “Off Topic.” Maybe we need another section for “Off thread!”
Anyway, I missed this part from Ira’s earlier post – no idea why.
Ira wrote: This is my whole problem with conservatism in general--the belief that people in need shouldn't receive help because it's all their fault.
Then you don’t have a clue what conservatism is about. We do NOT believe that people shouldn’t receive help when they need it. Far from it. We simply don’t believe that help should come from the Federal Government. They screw up everything they touch – remember Katrina? – so we believe they should keep their hands off as much as possible.
Putting aside the fact that we would have hundreds of thousands of homeless OVERNIGHT without SS, and that they would be camping in EVERYONE'S backyard and destroy the very fabric of this country in no time at all, do you not believe that the vast majority of people receiving SS would perish without it? And that they DESERVE it because they worked hard their entire lives, but simply didn’t earn enough or for other reasons couldn't put together the nest egg for retirement that others were able to? Like disability, spousal disability, an illness without health insurance, raising disabled children, other life circumstances that were no fault of their own?
I agree we can’t do away with SS because of so many who are dependent on it. However, the Fed has so mismanaged the program that it’s time to take it out of the hands of bureaucrats who are exempt from it (most of whom have never had a real job) and give it back to the people who paid into it. That’s how it was supposed to work – you pay into it, you take out of it. Except there’s nothing to take out because Congress has already spent it!
If SS is so great, why is Congress exempt from it? They have their own retirement system, which as a Federal Employee I have as well, similar to a 401K. It is a much better system than SS and could easily be made available to the public. I’ve been paying into SS for forty years and TSP for sixteen. When I retire, guess which one will pay me more?
Man, what the Republican Party stands for on these issues really takes the CAKE!
What, like a new prescription drug program? An education bill written by Ted Kennedy? Well, they did have one idea I liked – that people can manage their own money better than government. But they’ve apparently abandoned that. And me. When they called me for a donation, saying “We have to be sure to defeat the Democrats in November,” I asked why? How are we gonna tell the difference?
"Give the tax breaks to Halliburton and Enron and THEY'LL take care of the people."
The Enron executives have gone to jail, and rightly so. And you really need to get over Halliburton. Democrats didn't seem to have a problem with Halliburton’s income from defense contracts
doubling during the last two years of the Clinton administration.
The philosophy is pitiful, and the evidence of its results has been more than crystal clear this past 30 years.
They’ve only been in power for eight. But you’re right – they’re pathetic. I think so for different reasons than you, of course…
And now back to our regularly scheduled hijacked thread.Ira wrote:But the Constitution can be changed.
The term is “amended” and there is a formal process for that. The problem we have is both Congress and the Supreme Court changing it by “interpretation.”
And the "or to the people" part? What does that mean? Voting for Roosevelt who brought SS in? That's pretty vague stuff.
Not at all. “The people” in the constitution refers to the individual citizens. They can form local governments below the state level, enact laws, etc. The Constitution is very clear in the meaning of its words. The only people who have a problem with those words are those who don’t want those words to mean what they say and who want to change it without going through the amendment process because they know full well the vast majority of the people in this country wouldn’t stand for it.
And State's rights? About federal budgets? Since when has THAT been the case?
It’s not referring to States rights on Federal budgets. It means that the Federal Government is limited in what it can do to the specific authorizations granted it by the Constitution. Everything else is the provenance of the States or the people.
You've illustrated the main flaw in Constitutionalist's arguments--those that believe the Constitution has to be literally interpreted, except that interpretation is subject to so much VARIANCE!
Only to people who have to ask what the meaning of “is” is. The rest of us get it.
What does stem cell research have to do with interstate commerce?
Absolutely nothing. Hence, Congress has no business appropriating money for it.
How is a 3-day old fetus determined to be afforded protections under the Constitution?
Unfortunately, it doesn’t have those protections, but it should because it’s a human life. If I punch the mother in the stomach and the baby dies, I’m charged with assault on the mother and murder of the baby. But if a doctor kills it, it’s a “private matter.”
BUT HOW IS SS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!? IT'S A TAX, AND YOU STATE ABOVE THAT CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO COLLECT TAXES ON INCOME AFTER AMDT. 16! (Which is still being debated.)
It’s not the tax that’s unconstitutional. SS is unconstitutional because there’s nothing in the Constitution allowing Congress to use tax money to run Ponzi schemes, which is what SS is. BTW, I do question the ratification of Amendment 16, but I recognize the fact that we’re stuck with it.
Seriously, thanks for the good wishes. But I simply can't die in this hurricane until the glorious truth bursts from my lips to an eager, hungry-for-knowledge world.
OK – I’m waiting for it to burst forth…
I HATE REPUBLICANS! NOT JOSEPH--BUT REPUBLICANS IN GENERAL!
Knock yourself out – it doesn’t hurt them a bit.
Hating someone is like taking poison and waiting for them to die.(As a matter of fact, you sound more Libertarian--I think.)
DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!! We have a winner!
Will Smith wrote:Ain't Teardroppers the greatest? What a thread!
It really does need a campfire, though…
Joseph
