Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
If the Supreme Court determines that they are unconstitutional, what do we do now?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Charity: Not in the Constitution
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
If the Supreme Court determines that they are unconstitutional, what do we do now?
Werbung:
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
Don't get your undies in a bunch until that is taken before the Supreme Court
You have to get the 'horse into the hitch' before you push the cart off of that cliff...LMAO Finding a legal firm to take up your plight would be the first step and then proceed from there
But good luck with that 'MISSION' and please keep me posted with your life long cause!A song comes to mind; something about windmills and a old man on a donkey dressed like a knight in old English armor...Hmmm
Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
ASPCA dodges the question and tries to find excuses for not answering.
Anyone else want to participate?
If the Supreme Court finds these various big-govt programs (that millions are now depending on to varying degrees, however unwisely) are unconstitutional, what do we do now?
Anyone else want to participate?
If the Supreme Court finds these various big-govt programs (that millions are now depending on to varying degrees, however unwisely) are unconstitutional, what do we do now?
Pandora
Well-Known Member
give everyone who was forced to pay for the programs their money back (minus what they received in other government programs that were found to be unconstitutional)
and people learn to put away savings for their old age.
Though I am not sure how I feel about those who are litterally not able to fend for themselves
Half comes from the employee, half comes from the employer. So in theory, if there was no S.S., a worker could end up with half the value of the pension he would get now on Social Security.
Now if you look at the lowest paid of the workers (they have little to no disposable income), they are not likely to save enough in their life times to have any kind of a pension; that is why Social Security was implemented in the first place. Not to ensure that poor folks could live comfortably, but to mitigate the effects of poverty. That does not seem to be asking much in comparison to the 427 times the pay that CEOs get compared to the average worker.
That was not really a dodge. The question about the Supreme Court declaring such as NASA unconstitutional is a lot like asking what we would do if snow fell in Pheonix in August. It's an academic question. ASPCA got it right, except that the knight in question would have had Spanish armor, not English.
Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
Two people giving thought-out answers, and two answering to say they won't answer and giving various excuses why not. The latter is a strange reaction for a discussion board, but not for people with an indefensible agenda who are trying to pretend it's defensible.
The preamble puts into clear context the true motives behind what the new government plans on doing and why. It's the very spirit of the Constitution.
It's like this. There's a law that adults can't have sex with a minor child under a certain age. That's the law.
But how we get to that type of law, THE REASON, THE OVERALL EXPLANATION OF WHY THAT LAW IS TRYING TO PREVENT THIS "the spirit of the law if you will"... is that an adult can't have sex with a minor under a certain age because even if totally willing a minor child has not formed the mature mental ability at that age to make that decision.
So when we look for INTENT... or what one might say the MINDSET of the Founders drafting the Constitution the preamble is it.
There was no way of knowing everything to become in the future and no document could possibly cover every single possibility that could & would arise hundreds hopefully thousands of years forward (hence the need for Amendments). But the Founders gave us a great overview of their intent in the preamble to the Constitution.
Maybe this will explain the importance of the preamble to you...
Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
And the Preamble still isn't a command that govt do this or not do that. It has no legal effect.
Mare Tranquillity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,477
Extermination camps, it's the only answer. Do you suppose, Corn, that WHICH programs are declared un-Constitutional would have an impact on how we respond? I mean I like to tell you in advance exactly what we should do and everything, but I just can't. You could start by picking a specific example and we could chew around on that. I am really trying to answer your question, but it's soooooo broad that I think it's basically unanswerable.
Mare Tranquillity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,477
Social Darwinism commands that we kill them or let them die. Anyone who cannot compete is obviously a loser and a detriment to the human specie caused by the mongrelization of the good people, God's people, intermarrying with the inferior people. Didn't somebody named Hitler write a book about this?
Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
Go ahead.
Mare Tranquillity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,477
How about regulating marriage? It's being done in a way that is totally un-Constitutional in that the law is does not provide for equal protection of all consenting adults. Would that be a good one to discuss?
Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
Go ahead.
(Wondering why MT feels he needs my permission to discuss something)
Werbung:
Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
That's one approach. It has drawbacks, but I can't think of ANY approach to this problem, that doesn't have drawbacks. Here's a suggestion for Social Security:
How about if:
1.) All payments into Social Security stop now. Today. No one will ever have another penny taken out of his paycheck, for SS.
2.) People who have paid into SS all their lives and are now retired, will continue to get the same SS benefits as they would if no changes were made, for the rest of their lives as current SS rules call for. People of middle age who have worked and paid into SS for decades, but are still a few decades from retirement, will get the SS benefits at retirement that they would have gotten, if SS did not change but they stopped paying into it now. When they turn 65, they will get reduced benefits, lower than if they had paid into SS until they retired, as is also called out in current SS rules. People just entering the job market who have not yet made any SS payments, will never get a single SS benefit in their lives.
3.) Everyone will see their paychecks increase, usually by about 15%. (7-1/2% they used to have withheld for SS, and the matching 7-1/2% their employer used to pay to SS for them). They can use this extra money, to invest in a well-established private retirement fund. There are many that exist, paying anywhere from 5 to 10% interest for such long-term investments. People who have paid into SS and will retire in 20-plus years, and who will be getting reduced SS benefits when they do, will augment those benefits with the benefits from their own fund, which of course will also be smaller than if they had invested in the fund for the entire 40-plus years of their career. Younger people just starting out, will do all their retirement investing the their private fund, which will pay all their benefits when they retire.
(NOTE: Such retirement funds pay, on average, anywhere from 5 to 20 times as much as SS for a similar investment period. Fact.)
4.) Since the money to pay SS benefits to present and future retirees must come from somewhere (Govt has already spent all the money it took in from them, it's gone), a new tax will be levied on everyone, to provide those funds for the present and future retireeswho have paid into SS. And it will have a sunset provision: It will be adjusted to take in EXACTLY what the retirees will get this year, and next year, and etc. Since no one lives forever, eventually this tax will go out of existence as people who paid into SS, pass away. Eventually all will be gone, and so will the tax.
As I said, there is NO plan that is free from drawbacks, including this one. That tax will be a burden. Good news is, it will go away eventually, and everyone who has paid into SS will get what has been promised to them, nobody gets suddenly cut off. Private funds can fail... but they seldom do. And it is practical to get insurance against that possibility. But it is worth noting that none of the major funds that have been around for long times, have ever failed to deliver profits higher than those SS recipients have received over equal periods, even periods that included the Great Depression, the Carter recession of 1978-1982, and every other economic downturn we've had.
Should there be a law FORCING people to invest in a retirement fund (or two or ten)? Maybe... but I suggest that that be done on a state level rather than Federal. A one-size-fits-all policy here would be very bad. Individual states can decide how much coercion they should impose on their citizens, even on an obviously beneficial matter like retirement investment. Citizen input for such legislation, is much more effective and immediate at a state level, than at a Federal level.
How does this plan sound? As I said, it is not without drawbacks. But it has the benefit of positively eliminating the dead end of Social Security, which will enter bankruptcy within our lifetimes.
Similar threads
