Term Limits

[jimnyc]

Suppose there was a massive push from Americans, wanting all political positions to have a 2 term limit. Surely if we can hold the Presidency to this, we can do the same for congresspeople and others.

But since I'm clueless, what would it take to make this happen? I'm sure there would be bills, and votes in Congress - but what would it take in all for this change to be made into law? Anyone want to possibly layout what it would take to make this a reality?

[fj1200]

^Presumably a Constitutional amendment as for POTUS. Individual states have tried to impose term limits but they can't make it stick for the Federal. Now whether it's a good idea or not...

[DragonStryk72]

^Presumably a Constitutional amendment as for POTUS. Individual states have tried to impose term limits but they can't make it stick for the Federal. Now whether it's a good idea or not...

Actually, no. You would have to get it through Congress, but you could just expand the Amendment for the POTUS term limits to include the Congress as well.

[fj1200]

Actually, no. You would have to get it through Congress, but you could just expand the Amendment for the POTUS term limits to include the Congress as well.

I'm not so sure about that but I'd be happy to be wrong. Nevertheless Congress would be hard pressed to limit itself, see the 90's as example, and you can't amend amendments.

[DragonStryk72]

I'm not so sure about that but I'd be happy to be wrong. Nevertheless Congress would be hard pressed to limit itself, see the 90's as example, and you can't amend amendments.

Well they haven't had to pass a new Amendment to amend the 2nd, and lord knows they've played with that one enough.

It's really only in cases like the 18th and 21st Amendments where you need another Amendment in order to cancel out a prior Amendment.

[fj1200]

Well if you give me a few minutes I'll whip up a new amendment that will solve most of our problems, repeal the 17th, encourage third parties, include term limits, etc. then we'll just start an online campaign to get it ratified... Who's in?

[glockmail]

Congress won't police themselves. The states will have to call a Constitutional Convention in order to get term limits. I'd like to see that along with sweeping changes: term limits for SCOTUS, a strict interpretation of enumerated powers, re-vamp and reign-in all entitlements. If FedCo goes bankrupt we may have an opportunity for all that.

[fj1200]

Congress won't police themselves. The states will have to call a Constitutional Convention in order to get term limits. I'd like to see that along with sweeping changes: term limits for SCOTUS, a strict interpretation of enumerated powers, re-vamp and reign-in all entitlements. If FedCo goes bankrupt we may have an opportunity for all that.

How do you enforce a strict interpretation of enumerated powers? And I'm pretty sure I don't want entitlements codified in the Constitution.

[aboutime]

WHOA! Hold on a second. Think about it before demanding it.

If enough of the states today, based on the makeup of Congress, and the occupant of the White House, with his A.G. being his puppet, and the Missing, Brainless V.P. we have in power. Calling for a Constitutional Convention would be EXACTLY what everyone I just mentioned above WOULD WANT.

And, like it or not. The results of a Present Day C.C. would...most certainly be the FINAL straw that breaks the Camel's back...the camel being the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Once, and for all.

Giving those I mentioned above such an opportunity to freely destroy the Constitution IS NOT what most Americans would expect from such a Convention.

But..we cannot, and should not put anything past a HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI, or BARACK INSANE OBAMA.

[jimnyc]

WHOA! Hold on a second. Think about it before demanding it.

If enough of the states today, based on the makeup of Congress, and the occupant of the White House, with his A.G. being his puppet, and the Missing, Brainless V.P. we have in power. Calling for a Constitutional Convention would be EXACTLY what everyone I just mentioned above WOULD WANT.

And, like it or not. The results of a Present Day C.C. would...most certainly be the FINAL straw that breaks the Camel's back...the camel being the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Once, and for all.

Giving those I mentioned above such an opportunity to freely destroy the Constitution IS NOT what most Americans would expect from such a Convention.

But..we cannot, and should not put anything past a HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI, or BARACK INSANE OBAMA.

I would rather see a movement get started and have political support, and have them install various limitations on themselves. Somehow, someway it needs to get done. If we are literally unable to change something that would be better for Americans, but maybe not better for those looking for a lifetime position in congress, then we are being held hostage. They already hold themselves to another set of rules than the rest of us. Somebody, and eventually many more, need to find the courage to stand up and do the right thing. It boggles the mind to think we have created government in such a manner that this cannot be changed without losing grip of our country. The money and power of a few are stronger than the rest of the nation as a whole. I'm not calling for something that will ruin us as a country, or call for bloodshed - but we can't continue to let those in charge continue to make themselves more and more powerful while the rest of us slowly lose more rights.

[glockmail]

How do you enforce a strict interpretation of enumerated powers? And I'm pretty sure I don't want entitlements codified in the Constitution.

I don't want entitlements either but many do so in order to be legal thaey need to be codified in an amendment. The beauty of that idea is that a super majority is required to pass it so it has to be written simply and with enough flexibility that both libs and conservatives want it.

I think the way to restrict GovCo to enumerated powers is to use language that destroys the arguments that there are no enumerated powers. Although I don't buy the lib argument for one bit, in fact the Federalist papers mocks that argument, the language has to be stronger than it is now. That is it needs to say no, no way, no how, these are what GovCo may do and nothing more unless this article is amended, and if legislators propose acts which ignore this it is an impeachable offense.

That's the other area of the Constitution that has to be addressed: impeachment. The legislature is loath to remove one of its own. We need to have a citizen body that likes to do it. :coffee:

[glockmail]

WHOA! Hold on a second. Think about it before demanding it.

If enough of the states today, based on the makeup of Congress, and the occupant of the White House, with his A.G. being his puppet, and the Missing, Brainless V.P. we have in power. Calling for a Constitutional Convention would be EXACTLY what everyone I just mentioned above WOULD WANT.

And, like it or not. The results of a Present Day C.C. would...most certainly be the FINAL straw that breaks the Camel's back...the camel being the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Once, and for all.

Giving those I mentioned above such an opportunity to freely destroy the Constitution IS NOT what most Americans would expect from such a Convention.

But..we cannot, and should not put anything past a HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI, or BARACK INSANE OBAMA.

No worries there, because a Con-con is representatives of the states, not the bozos that currently hold federal offices. Remember, we are the united STATES of America.

[Arbo]

Term limits across the board would be fantastic.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I would rather see a movement get started and have political support, and have them install various limitations on themselves. Somehow, someway it needs to get done. If we are literally unable to change something that would be better for Americans, but maybe not better for those looking for a lifetime position in congress, then we are being held hostage. They already hold themselves to another set of rules than the rest of us. Somebody, and eventually many more, need to find the courage to stand up and do the right thing. It boggles the mind to think we have created government in such a manner that this cannot be changed without losing grip of our country. The money and power of a few are stronger than the rest of the nation as a whole. I'm not calling for something that will ruin us as a country, or call for bloodshed - but we can't continue to let those in charge continue to make themselves more and more powerful while the rest of us slowly lose more rights. No constitutional convention should be held as its fine as it is. However if were to be held to change it I'd want term limits installed at least a decade before such a great nation changing action took place! We do not need any damn career politicians involved in doing such an important change. In fact fighting to stop that would be imperative to many patriots. We simply can not give such an opportunity to the ffing powers that be now! I'd vote civil war/revolution before agreeing with HAVING A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION NOW UNDER THESE CURRENT CONDITIONS!! AND I'M DAMN SURE AGAINST HAVING A CIVIL WAR/REVOLUTTION!!--Tyr

[glockmail]

I run into this all the time. A Con-con doesn't mean that you get rid of the old Constitution. It means you do an amendment or amendments. Now that Congress and the President have decoded that they no longer have to go through this laborious process, the states need to step in and do a smack-down.

[Gaffer]

Sorry to have to break this to you all but nothings going to be changed through legislature at all. The elites have all the power and will never allow themselves to be voted out or their power taken from them. The states will have to all pull together to get a constitutional amendment written and remove the elites from power. I don't think that will happen without blood shed. And there's only a small window of opportunity.

[aboutime]

No worries there, because a Con-con is representatives of the states, not the bozos that currently hold federal offices. Remember, we are the united STATES of America.


Glockmail. I totally agree with you. However. The powers that be...now in congress, and the W/H would, and have ignored STATES RIGHTS since Obama was first elected.
Prior to the Obama election.
Do you remember, or can you count the number of states SUED by any President, or his A.G.?

Begin with Florida...and the 2000 Vote count, and proceed from there to Obama suing Arizona.

If they have the opportunity to get a CON CON started, and in place. Only GOD knows how much damage they would INTENTIONALLY do to our Constitution, and it's amendments...using the same IGNORANT, STUPID, nearly ILLITERATE Americans who voted for Obama TWICE?????

[glockmail]

Section 1. The governors of each state shall appoint two people who have never held elected office, one for the national impeachment committee and the second for the national ruling committee. The impeachment committee's sole purpose is to select at least two members of Congress or the Supreme Court per year who have demonstrated poor performance or behavior, investigate and interview witnesses, and write articles of impeachment. The ruling committee's sole purpose is to rule on the impeachment.

Section 2. Members of the House shall serve no more than eight years. Members of the Senate shall serve no more than twelve years. Officers of the Courts shall serve no longer than thirteen years.

Section 3. Article One Section 8 shall be interpreted as 18 enumerated powers, with general welfare meaning the welfare of the States, not the People. All laws passed by Congress shall specify which enumerated power the act is authorized under. All laws passed prior to this amendment shall be null and void within five years, unless reauthorized within the confines of the section. No law shall remain in effect for more than three years.

Section 4. The United States shall maintain a separate military Department, in addition to the Army and Navy, for the purpose of defending air and space of interest to the States.

Section 5. The United States Government shall not carry a budget deficit in any one year, unless a declaration of war is made, and if so all federal departments except the three military departments shall have a 10% budget reduction until the Act of war is rescinded.

Section 6. If the United States Government carries debt, it shall be reduced by reducing the budget by 1% for every 10% of the ratio of debt to gross domestic product, until such time that it is zero.

Section 7. No person shall receive compensation from the United States for any reason except labor, payments to injured veterans, earned pensions to employees, and as payments made for prior social security taxes. Indigent farms shall be maintained in each county, with separate barracks for adult males; males ages ten to eighteen; and females and children. Two meals will be served per day. A third meal will be served for indigents who have worked at east a four hour day. Meals and housing shall be similar to those provided by the Army for its enlisted soldiers. Indigent farms will be paid for by the United States Department of the Indigent and maintained by each State.

[glockmail]

Glockmail. I totally agree with you. However. The powers that be...now in congress, and the W/H would, and have ignored STATES RIGHTS since Obama was first elected.
Prior to the Obama election.
Do you remember, or can you count the number of states SUED by any President, or his A.G.?

Begin with Florida...and the 2000 Vote count, and proceed from there to Obama suing Arizona.

If they have the opportunity to get a CON CON started, and in place. Only GOD knows how much damage they would INTENTIONALLY do to our Constitution, and it's amendments...using the same IGNORANT, STUPID, nearly ILLITERATE Americans who voted for Obama TWICE?????

Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
Therefore the states carry out the convention and the states or the congress ratifies the Amendment.

[fj1200]

I don't want entitlements either but many do so in order to be legal thaey need to be codified in an amendment. The beauty of that idea is that a super majority is required to pass it so it has to be written simply and with enough flexibility that both libs and conservatives want it.

I think the way to restrict GovCo to enumerated powers is to use language that destroys the arguments that there are no enumerated powers. Although I don't buy the lib argument for one bit, in fact the Federalist papers mocks that argument, the language has to be stronger than it is now. That is it needs to say no, no way, no how, these are what GovCo may do and nothing more unless this article is amended, and if legislators propose acts which ignore this it is an impeachable offense.

That's the other area of the Constitution that has to be addressed: impeachment. The legislature is loath to remove one of its own. We need to have a citizen body that likes to do it. :coffee:

Um, entitlements are already legal. The very bad idea is that codifying an entitlement in the Constitution is that it gives people like BO what he wants in his stated position that the document should have "positive rights" and not just the "negative rights" that are there now.

But I'm glad your enumerated powers ploy boils down to, "we mean it this time." :poke:

So you want to have an impeachment committee that's sole job is to impeach; I see nothing wrong there. :rolleyes: Besides, we already have those elected committees especially the one that should have the role of conviction: Repeal the 17th.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Um, entitlements are already legal. The very bad idea is that codifying an entitlement in the Constitution is that it gives people like BO what he wants in his stated position that the document should have "positive rights" and not just the "negative rights" that are there now.

But I'm glad your enumerated powers ploy boils down to, "we mean it this time." :poke:

So you want to have an impeachment committee that's sole job is to impeach; I see nothing wrong there. :rolleyes: Besides, we already have those elected committees especially the one that should have the role of conviction: Repeal the 17th. ^^^ Obviously typed with a smirk as you continue your attack on those of us that have relentlessly demanded Obama's impeachment. Where you shot down every reason we put forth including the damn known scandals!!! :laugh:--Tyr

[fj1200]

^^^ Obviously typed with a smirk as you continue your attack on those of us that have relentlessly demanded Obama's impeachment. Where you shot down every reason we put forth including the damn known scandals!!! :laugh:--Tyr

No I haven't. You must only be remembering the "petty" ones. ;) Nevertheless, no smirk, I just don't think we should go amendin' and stuff based on the current idiot.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No I haven't. You must only be remembering the "petty" ones. ;) Nevertheless, no smirk, I just don't think we should go amendin' and stuff based on the current idiot.


I just don't think we should go amendin' and stuff based on the current idiot. I agree with that. I also think there is no reason the change anything about the Constitution when all we need to do is go back to believing in and accurately interpreting and sticking with it. The last thirty years we have steadily increased moving away from it and that's by designed not happenstance.--Tyr

[fj1200]

I agree with that. I also think there is no reason the change anything about the Constitution when all we need to do is go back to believing in and accurately interpreting and sticking with it. The last thirty years we have steadily increased moving away from it and that's by designed not happenstance.--Tyr

Not saying we couldn't use an amendment to clean things up but the above listing seems to be too far along the lines of legislation by amendment and last I checked Prohibition didn't work out to well. I'd start with repealing the 17th and require the legislatures to appoint Senators to fill terms, require run-off elections for all Federal elections that don't result in 50% + 1 including POTUS electors, and Congressional term limits to 12 years.

Oh yeah, and weed; can't forget the weed.

[glockmail]

Um, entitlements are already legal. ... No they are not.

[glockmail]

Oh yeah, and weed; can't forget the weed. Since old laws become null and new ones have to be within the confines of the enumerated powers there would no longer be a DEA or laws against drug use. If you want to steep your brains in meth than knock yourself out. You'll end up on an indigent farm, sleeping in barracks with the rest of your male counterparts.

[fj1200]

No they are not.

Would you care to check your tax returns??? Or relevant SCOTUS decisions??? Or would you require looking at some big building in our nation's capitol???


Since old laws become null and new ones have to be within the confines of the enumerated powers there would no longer be a DEA or laws against drug use. If you want to steep your brains in meth than knock yourself out. You'll end up on an indigent farm, sleeping in barracks with the rest of your male counterparts.

I didn't say meth, I said weed. Can't forget the weed. :slap:

[glockmail]

Would you care to check your tax returns??? Or relevant SCOTUS decisions??? Or would you require looking at some big building in our nation's capitol??? Congress overstepped its authority, and when challenged, SCOTUS wimped out and decided it doesn't want to overrule Congress. It's still ALL unconstitutional.

[fj1200]

Congress overstepped its authority, and when challenged, SCOTUS wimped out and decided it doesn't want to overrule Congress. It's still ALL unconstitutional.

Yeah, hang on to that. :rolleyes: Nevertheless, your idea is to fight an "illegal" entitlement by codifying it in the Constitution; Not so much a good idea IMO.


Um, entitlements are already legal. The very bad idea is that codifying an entitlement in the Constitution is that it gives people like BO what he wants in his stated position that the document should have "positive rights" and not just the "negative rights" that are there now.

[glockmail]

Yeah, hang on to that. :rolleyes: Nevertheless, your idea is to fight an "illegal" entitlement by codifying it in the Constitution; Not so much a good idea IMO.I will hang on to that since it is a fact.

Once an illegal act is codified as an Amendment it becomes legal, same for entitlements. Perhaps you misunderstood section 3:


...All laws passed prior to this amendment shall be null and void within five years... ...meaning social security gets gone, except for those who have already paid:


...No person shall receive compensation from the United States for any reason except ... as payments made for prior social security taxes. ...

The only other entitlement written into this proposal is the indigent farms, which provide a low safety net, not the luxurious welfare state that we now endure.

:slap:

[fj1200]

I will hang on to that since it is a fact.

Once an illegal act is codified as an Amendment it becomes legal, same for entitlements. Perhaps you misunderstood section 3:

...meaning social security gets gone, except for those who have already paid:

Nope, didn't misunderstand this either:


I don't want entitlements either but many do so in order to be legal thaey need to be codified in an amendment.

You seem to be confused about fact; don't worry it's fairly common here. An amendment doesn't confer legality, ultimately the SCOTUS confers legality and that boat left the shipyard 70 years ago, has come in for refitment a couple of times, and delivered a few million passengers all while being an incredibly bad design from the beginning.

So as far as your codified entitlement:

Section 7. No person shall receive compensation from the United States for any reason except labor, payments to injured veterans, earned pensions to employees, and as payments made for prior social security taxes.

Congratulations, you've just codified a budget busting entitlement that preferences the old over the young to boot. Perhaps we shouldn't use the Constitution for legislative purposes unless you think Prohibition went fairly well.


The only other entitlement written into this proposal is the indigent farms, which provide a low safety net, not the luxurious welfare state that we now endure.

:slap:

Why are you proposing a Federal amendment that forces the States to act in a particular manner? :slap: indeed.

[glockmail]

Nope, didn't misunderstand this either:



You seem to be confused about fact; don't worry it's fairly common here. An amendment doesn't confer legality, ultimately the SCOTUS confers legality and that boat left the shipyard 70 years ago, has come in for refitment a couple of times, and delivered a few million passengers all while being an incredibly bad design from the beginning.

So as far as your codified entitlement:
Section 7. No person shall receive compensation from the United States for any reason except labor, payments to injured veterans, earned pensions to employees, and as payments made for prior social security taxes.

Congratulations, you've just codified a budget busting entitlement that preferences the old over the young to boot. Perhaps we shouldn't use the Constitution for legislative purposes unless you think Prohibition went fairly well.



Why are you proposing a Federal amendment that forces the States to act in a particular manner? :slap: indeed.

Actually SCOTUS can't overrule an Amendment, so you're confused about that fact as well. Don't worry though because it's fairly common here.

Ending social security with a balance budget amendment isn't a budget buster. Keeping it in place with no budget is. How silly to think otherwise.

Perhaps we should use the amendment process as intended, to clarify and amend the constitution by super majorities and ratifications instead of letting congress ignore it and pass laws with 50% plus one majorities. :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sorry, double post.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not saying we couldn't use an amendment to clean things up but the above listing seems to be too far along the lines of legislation by amendment and last I checked Prohibition didn't work out to well. I'd start with repealing the 17th and require the legislatures to appoint Senators to fill terms, require run-off elections for all Federal elections that don't result in 50% + 1 including POTUS electors, and Congressional term limits to 12 years.

Oh yeah, and weed; can't forget the weed. An Amendment or two would be no problem but the concept to hold a convention to rewrite the entire Constitution is actually Un-Constitutional because it would be the work of a single government in our history and no different than it being destroyed in other ways. Its not like the Constitution is a motor that can have a massive overhaul and just be a better version for future use! The Amendment process was put in to make damn sure the sneaky idea to overhaul the entire damn thing wasn't ever allowed IMHO. That is WHAT THE VERY IDEA OF DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION IS ALL ABOUT. A tactic to ( in essence) destroy it by totally revamping it was exactly why the Amendment process is there! There is not even one politician alive today that I'd trust to be involved in such an action. Not even one! For not a damn one is even remotely the caliber of any of the original founders!-Tyr

[Arbo]

but the concept to hold a convention to rewrite the entire Constitution is actually Un-Constitutional

The founders wrote in the process for the purpose of changing or abandoning the Constitution, so it can't possibly be un-Constitutional.

[fj1200]

Actually SCOTUS can't overrule an Amendment, so you're confused about that fact as well. Don't worry though because it's fairly common here.

Ending social security with a balance budget amendment isn't a budget buster. Keeping it in place with no budget is. How silly to think otherwise.

Perhaps we should use the amendment process as intended, to clarify and amend the constitution by super majorities and ratifications instead of letting congress ignore it and pass laws with 50% plus one majorities. :laugh:

Not really confused as SCOTUS has already conferred legality on SS and Medicare... much to your chagrin as it didn't require an amendment. Nevertheless you don't actually end SS, you express a desire that those who paid in be entitled to be paid out when those dollars have long since been spent. And where do you think those dollars will come from? As designed the young pay payroll taxes to fund the retirement of the old, as you've "ended" SS there will be no dollars coming in to pay anyone back.

But I do agree that the amendment process should be used as intended but not to legislate and codify bad ideas.

[fj1200]

An Amendment or two would be no problem but the concept to hold a convention to rewrite the entire Constitution is actually Un-Constitutional because it would be the work of a single government in our history and no different than it being destroyed in other ways. Its not like the Constitution is a motor that can have a massive overhaul and just be a better version for future use! The Amendment process was put in to make damn sure the sneaky idea to overhaul the entire damn thing wasn't ever allowed IMHO. That is WHAT THE VERY IDEA OF DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION IS ALL ABOUT. A tactic to ( in essence) destroy it by totally revamping it was exactly why the Amendment process is there! There is not even one politician alive today that I'd trust to be involved in such an action. Not even one! For not a damn one is even remotely the caliber of any of the original founders!-Tyr

I'm not exactly sure what point you're disputing. No one is suggesting that we have a Con-Con to rewrite the Constitution... outside of some actual lefties that is. An amendment that restores certain aspects, to me anyway, of the Constitution by repealing the 17th, reducing the reality of two-party politics by mandating a run-off, and implementing some term limits is not rewriting the Constitution.

[logroller]

Congress overstepped its authority, and when challenged, SCOTUS wimped out and decided it doesn't want to overrule Congress. It's still ALL unconstitutional.
Well that's your opinion; however article 3 section 2 states that 'The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...'; so the power to confer legality/constitutionality of a law is constitutionally vested in scotus. There's no exception for their wimping out. Only scotus can overrule scotus, notwithstanding an amendment and only then when a suit is brought before them and deemed justiciable and ripe. It's really quite difficult to receive a ruling from the Court. Scotus could, theoretically, ignore the constitution, the amendments / their previous rulings etc and interpret a law any way they so choose and there's really no legal/ constitutional recourse save stacking the court... which they'd avert only by 'wimping out', but that is to assume that congress and the president mutually agree to such-- that is the nature of the balance of powers created by the constitution itself. Its not perfect, nor equitable necessarily, but it is constituional.

[Kathianne]

Well that's your opinion; however article 3 section 2 states that 'The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...'; so the power to confer legality/constitutionality of a law is constitutionally vested in scotus. There's no exception for their wimping out. Only scotus can overrule scotus, notwithstanding an amendment and only then when a suit is brought before them and deemed justiciable and ripe. It's really quite difficult to receive a ruling from the Court. Scotus could, theoretically, ignore the constitution, the amendments / their previous rulings etc and interpret a law any way they so choose and there's really no legal/ constitutional recourse save stacking the court... which they'd avert only by 'wimping out', but that is to assume that congress and the president mutually agree to such-- that is the nature of the balance of powers created by the constitution itself. Its not perfect, nor equitable necessarily, but it is constituional.

Congress can write a new bill to overcome SCOTUS objections. There is always the option of amending, though not likely.

[fj1200]

Congress can write a new bill to overcome SCOTUS objections. There is always the option of amending, though not likely.

Though Congress has been woefully bad of late in offering good legislation I still prefer that the Constitution lay the groundwork for government and allows Congress to manage the day-to-day of legislating.

[glockmail]

Not really confused as SCOTUS has already conferred legality on SS and Medicare... much to your chagrin as it didn't require an amendment. Nevertheless you don't actually end SS, you express a desire that those who paid in be entitled to be paid out when those dollars have long since been spent. And where do you think those dollars will come from? As designed the young pay payroll taxes to fund the retirement of the old, as you've "ended" SS there will be no dollars coming in to pay anyone back.

But I do agree that the amendment process should be used as intended but not to legislate and codify bad ideas.

The proposal ends SS as we know it, and since it requires a balanced budget Congress will have to find out where to pay the money. Since all the hundreds of other non-constitutional departments will be gone, there will be plenty of money to pay back the old folks.

[glockmail]

Well that's your opinion; however article 3 section 2 states that 'The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...'; so the power to confer legality/constitutionality of a law is constitutionally vested in scotus. There's no exception for their wimping out. Only scotus can overrule scotus, notwithstanding an amendment and only then when a suit is brought before them and deemed justiciable and ripe. It's really quite difficult to receive a ruling from the Court. Scotus could, theoretically, ignore the constitution, the amendments / their previous rulings etc and interpret a law any way they so choose and there's really no legal/ constitutional recourse save stacking the court... which they'd avert only by 'wimping out', but that is to assume that congress and the president mutually agree to such-- that is the nature of the balance of powers created by the constitution itself. Its not perfect, nor equitable necessarily, but it is constituional.

Since these acts did not arise under the Constitution, SCOTUS has no authority to claim that they are constitutional. Since judges serve "in good behavior", an extremely low bar for impeachment, ignoring the constitution clearly trips over that bar.

[Arbo]

The proposal ends SS as we know it, and since it requires a balanced budget Congress will have to find out where to pay the money. Since all the hundreds of other non-constitutional departments will be gone, there will be plenty of money to pay back the old folks.

An end to SS is a good thing. Either be responsible for your own retirement or work until the day you die. Not the governments problem.

[aboutime]

Since these acts did not arise under the Constitution, SCOTUS has no authority to claim that they are constitutional. Since judges serve "in good behavior", an extremely low bar for impeachment, ignoring the constitution clearly trips over that bar.


Something I do believe all of us have forgotten. There are supposed to be THREE Equal Branches of Government, and, according to the Constitution...No one branch should be more powerful than any other.


http://youtu.be/NhhYqRjGzBk

[glockmail]

Something I do believe all of us have forgotten. There are supposed to be THREE Equal Branches of Government, and, according to the Constitution...No one branch should be more powerful than any other.

True, which is why SCOTUS long ago decided that whatever Congress passes and the POTUS does is OK. Therefore SCOTUS does not decide Constitutionality.

[Kathianne]

True, which is why SCOTUS long ago decided that whatever Congress passes and the POTUS does is OK. Therefore SCOTUS does not decide Constitutionality.
Really? Give examples.

[aboutime]

True, which is why SCOTUS long ago decided that whatever Congress passes and the POTUS does is OK. Therefore SCOTUS does not decide Constitutionality.



Glock. All of which, kind of brings us FULL CIRCLE, back to the discussion about IMPEACHMENT.

I knew we were in big trouble when SCOTUS literally said...

"It's legal, and okay for Politicians to Lie."

Look at how Obama, all of the Congressional Democrats have been taking FULL advantage of that ability to LIE, without repercussions since then.
Truth is. WE'RE SCREWED.
BEND OVER. IT'S COMING FOR ALL OF US.

[fj1200]

The proposal ends SS as we know it, and since it requires a balanced budget Congress will have to find out where to pay the money. Since all the hundreds of other non-constitutional departments will be gone, there will be plenty of money to pay back the old folks.

Yeah, great plan. Thanks for the tax hike. :slap:


True, which is why SCOTUS long ago decided that whatever Congress passes and the POTUS does is OK. Therefore SCOTUS does not decide Constitutionality.

No, no... That's you. :rolleyes:

[logroller]

Since these acts did not arise under the Constitution, SCOTUS has no authority to claim that they are constitutional. Since judges serve "in good behavior", an extremely low bar for impeachment, ignoring the constitution clearly trips over that bar.


The constitution grants legislative power (ie make laws) to congress-- the aforementioned acts are products of laws made by congress--ergo they arise under the constitution. This contrasts with foreign laws or natural laws. If I'm convicted of prosthelytizing Christianity in Saudi Arabia I can't expect redress from scotus anymore than I could expect such for breakage of a dropped glass on account of gravity, not because those laws are Constitutional -- indubitably, they are not -- rather its because such laws didn't arise under the constitution of the United States, whereas entitlement laws did and thus were granted certiorari.


If one is to infer that scotus hasn't the power to confer the constitutionality of a law, in utter disregard of marbury v Madison, then they haven't the power to render a law unconstitutional either --- therefore judicial review is a moot if not a wholly extraneous exercise. Quite frankly if that's the case then the judicial branch hasn't the power to balance the legislative & executive powers and article 3 section 1 would have only needed to enumerate the creation of inferior courts by congress. Of course the Court already settled this at the turn of the 19th century which explains the innumerable cases since brought forth under article 3 where the Court has explicitly ruled upon the Constitutionality of laws and government actions, including entitlements.


As to "good behavior", I believe the standard for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Perhaps you could present some precedent, or any law for that matter that criminalizes a judicial opinion itself...I highly doubt you can because such a law doesn't exist...because in deference to the jurists' objections there are prescribed legislative methods for amending law that are arguably less onerous than impeachment proceedings and certainly less likely to violate the separation of powers.

[revelarts]

Really? Give examples.

Obamacare, more or less..
Torture and Indefinite detention more or less...
Invasion of other countries by the president's leave... more or less.
Killing of American citizens abroad...
Wholesale spying on American citizens without warrants...

I could think of more given a bit of time.

[revelarts]

Anti-Federalist Papers
The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents

...Thus it appears that the liberties, happiness, interests, and great concerns of the whole United States, may be dependent upon the integrity, virtue, wisdom, and knowledge of 25 or 26 men_How unadequate and unsafe a representation! Inadequate because the sense and views of 3 or 4 millions of people diffused over so extensive a territory comprising such various climates products, habits, interests, and opinions, cannot be collected in so small a body; and besides, it is not a fair and equal representation of the people even in proportion to its number, for the smallest state has as much weight in the senate as the largest and from the smallness of the number to be chosen for both branches of the legislature; and from the mode of election and appointment, which is under the control of Congress, and from the nature of the thing, men of the most elevated rank in life will alone be chosen. The other orders in the society, such as farmers, traders, and mechanics, who all ought to have a competent number of their best informed men in the legislature, will be totally unrepresented.

The representation is unsafe, because in the exercise of such great powers and trusts, it is so exposed to corruption and undue influence, by the gift of the numerous places of honor and emoluments at the disposal of the executive; by the arts and address of the great and designing; and by direct bribery.

The representation is moreover inadequate and unsafe, because of the long terms for which it is appointed, and the mode of its appointment, by which Congress may not only control the choice of the people, but may so manage as to divest the people of this fundamental right, and become self-elected....




Anti federalist had more right than wrong..

[logroller]

Obamacare, more or less..
Torture and Indefinite detention more or less...
Invasion of other countries by the president's leave... more or less.
Killing of American citizens abroad...
Wholesale spying on American citizens without warrants...

I could think of more given a bit of time.

With that time, instead, perhaps you should examine the rulings-- I think you'll find the reasoning on constitutional authority therein. Item one for example ruled that it was a tax-- which is an enumerated power. Its important to recognize that something being constitutional doesn't infer that it is good or necessary -- that's what the aca ruling said...more or less...along with striking down part of the law for being unconstitutional.
Maybe you should use examples that don't undermine the assertion that scotus merely rubber-stamps congressional and executive power-grabs.

[revelarts]

With that time, instead, perhaps you should examine the rulings-- I think you'll find the reasoning on constitutional authority therein. Item one for example ruled that it was a tax-- which is an enumerated power. Its important to recognize that something being constitutional doesn't infer that it is good or necessary -- that's what the aca ruling said...more or less...along with striking down part of the law for being unconstitutional.
Maybe you should use examples that don't undermine the assertion that scotus merely rubber-stamps congressional and executive power-grabs.

that why i said more or less for those examples... c'mon log.
But the law was promoted NOT as a tax in congress...supposedly therefore avoiding the unconstitutional origination of the bill from the wrong house. (as well as avoiding the political bad feedback)
--All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; ..--
hows that for examining the situation?

so it should have been ruled unconstitutional on that 1 point. IF ACA is indeed a "tax". If we are being strictly constitutional that is.
then the ruling is legally flawed, not just bad and unnecessary. So it a practical rubber stamp if not an outright one. And as many rulings was heavily (unavoidably maybe?) influenced by politics imo.

[Kathianne]

Obamacare, more or less..
Torture and Indefinite detention more or less...
Invasion of other countries by the president's leave... more or less.
Killing of American citizens abroad...
Wholesale spying on American citizens without warrants...

I could think of more given a bit of time.

I can agree or not with these examples, but do they demonstrate an absence of the SCOTUS that was alleged?

[revelarts]

I can agree or not with these examples, but do they demonstrate an absence of the SCOTUS that was alleged?

Well
the Courts, excutive and congress are to Check and balance.
and in the case of the wholesale spying.
the Court has abdicated or avoided it's authority by not taking the cases or ruling definitively on them.

I guess people could argue semantically over what to call it but for practical purposes it's often a rubber stamp, or absence i think.

In some areas it has timidly drawn a thin line. But congress has just as often immediately tried to create NEW laws that out flanked the courts narrowly defined ruling. And the executive has lived by the policy "it's better to ask forgiveness than ask permission" . and congress does not have the guts to call the presidents acts unconstitutional on the level of impeachment.
so here we are.

[logroller]

that why i said more or less for those examples... c'mon log.
But the law was promoted NOT as a tax in congress...supposedly therefore avoiding the unconstitutional origination of the bill from the wrong house. (as well as avoiding the political bad feedback)
hows that for examining the situation?

well I said the rulings themselves but if the situation at large is being examined maybe start at Wikipedia: PPACA

Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009Committee consideration by: Ways and Means
Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010
So it originated in the House and was finally passed in the house....thats probably why scotus didn't award an merit to the argument.


so it should have been ruled unconstitutional on that 1 point. IF ACA is indeed a "tax"
then the ruling is legally flawed, not just bad and unnecessary. So it a practical rubber stamp if not an outright one. And as many rulings was heavily (unavoidably maybe?) influenced by politics imo.
You've been misinformed. Scotus did a pretty good job of keeping politics out of it IMO. The one element of its being a tax that arouses questions is that it was argued to be barred from judicial review pending its actual assessment; to wit theCourt ruled that the political language (ie 'fine' not 'tax') excluded Congress from its own law meant to protect its instruments. Whereas under the lowest standard of constitutional scrutiny, rational basis, it was to be construed as a tax by any rational, in this case by virtue of function, in spite of its verbiage. As thurgood Marshall once said, "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws."

[revelarts]

well I said the rulings themselves but if the situation at large is being examined maybe start at Wikipedia: PPACA

So it originated in the House and was finally passed in the house....thats probably why scotus didn't award an merit to the argument.


You've been misinformed. Scotus did a pretty good job of keeping politics out of it IMO. The one element of its being a tax that arouses questions is that it was argued to be barred from judicial review pending its actual assessment; to wit theCourt ruled that the political language (ie 'fine' not 'tax') excluded Congress from its own law meant to protect its instruments. Whereas under the lowest standard of constitutional scrutiny, rational basis, it was to be construed as a tax by any rational, in this case by virtue of function, in spite of its verbiage. As thurgood Marshall once said, "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws."

Wiki might be wrong on this one.
Lawsuit over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’



Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.

The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their “aha” moment.“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.”
The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and “has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis.”
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to rule on the Justice Department’s motion “any day now,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard.
The challenge citing the Origination Clause isn’t the only lawsuit against Obamacare, but it is the only one that has the potential to wipe out the entire act in one fell swoop. Other claims, notably the freedom-of-religion cases dealing with the birth control requirement, nibble at the fringes but would leave the law largely intact.
In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as “gut and amend” and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/?page=all

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/06/29/if-the-health-care-law-is-really-a-tax-law-is-it-doomed-on-procedure/

http://www.newsmax.com/JosephESchmitz/House-Obamacare-Origination-Clause/2013/04/22/id/500823

http://www.pacificlegal.org/releases/PLF-suit-Tax-raising-Affordable-Care-Act-started-in-wrong-house-of-Congress



we'll have to let the court rubberst .. i mean decide.

[glockmail]

Really? Give examples.I'll give you one: ObamaCare.

[glockmail]

Yeah, great plan. Thanks for the tax hike. You're welcome, but since most of what GovCo does now would be eliminated, you are more likely to get a tax reduction.

[glockmail]

As to "good behavior", I believe the standard for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Perhaps you could present some precedent, or any law for that matter that criminalizes a judicial opinion itself...I highly doubt you can because such a law doesn't exist...because in deference to the jurists' objections there are prescribed legislative methods for amending law that are arguably less onerous than impeachment proceedings and certainly less likely to violate the separation of powers.

You should read the Constitution, because the standards for the president, legislators, and judges are all different:


Legislators: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." (Article 1 Section 5 Clause 2)



"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Article II Section 4)



Judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". (Article III Section 1)

Clearly judges have a low bar for removal.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You should read the Constitution, because the standards for the president, legislators, and judges are all different:


Legislators: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." (Article 1 Section 5 Clause 2)



"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Article II Section 4)



Judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". (Article III Section 1)

Clearly judges have a low bar for removal. Clearly this part was important or else it would have never been listed at all!!!!
-" or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"- Now perhaps some should also look up the definition of the word --misdemeanors !!! Because I see some here that think that the Prez must be guilty of murder or other felonies TO SUCH A LEVEL THAT A PREZ CAN PURSUE HIS OWN PERSONAL AGENDA AT NO RISK AT ALL OF BEING REMOVED FROM OFFICE. If that were true he would in essence be a dictator IMHO. I AM SURE THAT THE FRAMERS HAD NO SUCH LEVEL OF AUTHORITY IN MIND FOR THE PREZ.... And if they didn't they had to put in some punishment for and way of removing such a bad prez.. HENCE -- THE WORDS-- high crimes --AND-- MISDEMEANORS...

[fj1200]

You're welcome, but since most of what GovCo does now would be eliminated, you are more likely to get a tax reduction.

Yeah, I'll hold my breath. So why are you supporting a wealth transfer amendment from the young, working (relatively) poor to the old, non-working (relatively) wealthy?

[glockmail]

Yeah, I'll hold my breath. So why are you supporting a wealth transfer amendment from the young, working (relatively) poor to the old, non-working (relatively) wealthy?

Clearly you are misunderstanding what I'm proposing, which is elimination of social security, the exact opposite of what you're leading question insinuates. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Clearly you are misunderstanding what I'm proposing, which is elimination of social security, the exact opposite of what you're leading question insinuates. :laugh:

I know exactly what you're proposing and I know the ramifications of what you propose.


Section 7. No person shall receive compensation from the United States for any reason except... payments made for prior social security taxes.

The old will be "paid back" by the young, i.e. wealth transfer. You should really think through your ideas a bit more.

[logroller]

Wiki might be wrong on this one.
Lawsuit over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’






http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/?page=all


http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/06/29/if-the-health-care-law-is-really-a-tax-law-is-it-doomed-on-procedure/


http://www.newsmax.com/JosephESchmitz/House-Obamacare-Origination-Clause/2013/04/22/id/500823


http://www.pacificlegal.org/releases/PLF-suit-Tax-raising-Affordable-Care-Act-started-in-wrong-house-of-Congress






we'll have to let the court rubberst .. i mean decide.
Seeing as that wiki linked to the library of congress, I'm pretty confident that it did originate in the house.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3590:


Furthermore, those suits claim that the original text wasn't a revenue bill; however, the text plainly states that it is a modification of the tax code.
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time home- buyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590ih.pdf


Other purposes indeed. Scotus has already ruled on PPACA, they won't revisit it-- it's political issue at this point.

[glockmail]

I know exactly what you're proposing and I know the ramifications of what you propose.



The old will be "paid back" by the young, i.e. wealth transfer. You should really think through your ideas a bit more.That's the way social security works. This plan puts a gradual end to it. :slap:

[fj1200]

That's the way social security works. This plan puts a gradual end to it. :slap:

Precisely yet your plan tells the young to pay back the old and then they're out of luck. "Legislating" dumb ideas is not a proper use of the amendment process. :slap:

[glockmail]

Precisely yet your plan tells the young to pay back the old and then they're out of luck. "Legislating" dumb ideas is not a proper use of the amendment process. :slap:

Actually my plan gradually ends bad legislation, while at the same time paying folks back who have been forced to pay into the system. Young folks will then be paying decreasing amounts over time. That's not "out of luck"; it's savings for them. :laugh:

[Kathianne]

Actually my plan gradually ends bad legislation, while at the same time paying folks back who have been forced to pay into the system. Young folks will then be paying decreasing amounts over time. That's not "out of luck"; it's savings for them. :laugh:

I've always, (at least since 22), been in favor of something like this. I do think the young should have a loud and clear message of how they will be contributing to a program for which they will not benefit.

Where at one time I thought older folks should get back their 'confiscated $$' it's gotten so far outside of reasonable that I think there needs to be means testing and sliding scale in benefits. Something like, those with monthly retirement income of over $4000 per month besides SSI, no SSI. Over $3k per month: no more than $800 SSI, etc. If illness or investments fail, SSI wiykd kick in.

[fj1200]

Actually my plan gradually ends bad legislation, while at the same time paying folks back who have been forced to pay into the system. Young folks will then be paying decreasing amounts over time. That's not "out of luck"; it's savings for them. :laugh:

You really don't understand your own idea do you? But at least you finally acknowledge reality.

[glockmail]

I've always, (at least since 22), been in favor of something like this. I do think the young should have a loud and clear message of how they will be contributing to a program for which they will not benefit.

Where at one time I thought older folks should get back their 'confiscated $$' it's gotten so far outside of reasonable that I think there needs to be means testing and sliding scale in benefits. Something like, those with monthly retirement income of over $4000 per month besides SSI, no SSI. Over $3k per month: no more than $800 SSI, etc. If illness or investments fail, SSI wiykd kick in.

The fact is that they do benefit, even if they won't be getting cash payments when they retire. In other cultures children take care of their parents when they get old. That used to be the norm in the US as well, until FedCo institutionalized it.

My plan doesn't address what program will replace SS, because I think that is a different discussion. But I'd like to see a small national agency that does nothing other than publish a website with specific investment guidelines. Of course liberals want a socialized system with them in control. A reasonable compromise would be required payments like we have now, but in your on account, and controlled by you within the national guidelines.

[glockmail]

You really don't understand your own idea do you? But at least you finally acknowledge reality.Kindly reference where I have in the past not acknowledged reality. :coffee:

[fj1200]

Kindly reference where I have in the past not acknowledged reality. :coffee:

:shrug:


Clearly you are misunderstanding what I'm proposing, which is elimination of social security, the exact opposite of what you're leading question insinuates. :laugh:

Would you like more?


The fact is that they do benefit, even if they won't be getting cash payments when they retire.

So, they benefit by paying and not getting??? :confused:

[glockmail]

They benefit by paying less into a crappy program over time.

Instead of whining about some perceived 'lack of acknowledgement', why not come up with a counter-proposal? Or are you not capable? :laugh:

[aboutime]

They benefit by paying less into a crappy program over time.

Instead of whining about some perceived 'lack of acknowledgement', why not come up with a counter-proposal? Or are you not capable? :laugh:


glockmail. Guess you have forgotten, or don't remember the actual meaning of "f and j".

But, it really doesn't matter. You will forever get the same non-capable responses from fj.

[Arbo]

Actually my plan gradually ends bad legislation, while at the same time paying folks back who have been forced to pay into the system. Young folks will then be paying decreasing amounts over time. That's not "out of luck"; it's savings for them. :laugh:

If they are paying in, they deserve to be paid back, which means when they are old the next set of young people is paying for them, it's a never ending cycle.

[fj1200]

They benefit by paying less into a crappy program over time.

Instead of whining about some perceived 'lack of acknowledgement', why not come up with a counter-proposal? Or are you not capable? :laugh:

First things first which was your acknowledgement that the young are stuck paying for the old, second is that it isn't a benefit to pay less for something that you'll never receive, and third your lack of acknowledgement isn't my fault. The amendment process shouldn't be used as a legislative tool.

My counter proposal? Treat SS as the welfare program that it should be; There is no reason that the young should be subsidizing the lifestyles of the retired.

[fj1200]

If they are paying in, they deserve to be paid back, which means when they are old the next set of young people is paying for them, it's a never ending cycle.

True, and some sort of reform needs to happen sooner than later because the budget is going to bust. There is just not going to be enough workers per retiree unless benefits are reduced and retirement age is increased. But SS is a well-run :laugh: program compared to the clusterf* that Medicare will be in the out years.

[Kathianne]

True, and some sort of reform needs to happen sooner than later because the budget is going to bust. There is just not going to be enough workers per retiree unless benefits are reduced and retirement age is increased. But SS is a well-run :laugh: program compared to the clusterf* that Medicare will be in the out years.

I agree, some oldsters will not get what they put in, simply because they planned and saved too much. That is unfortunate, but the burden on the young needs to be brought down ASAP, as they not only will not have SSI, but also have tremendous student debt that previous generations did not face. The needs of both ends need to be addressed.

[fj1200]

I agree, some oldsters will not get what they put in, simply because they planned and saved too much. That is unfortunate, but the burden on the young needs to be brought down ASAP, as they not only will not have SSI, but also have tremendous student debt that previous generations did not face. The needs of both ends need to be addressed.

The payroll taxes are killing our international competitiveness IMO on top of the debt loads that you mention that many are facing. This is on top of dismal job prospects due to lack of a coherent pro-growth policy for those just coming out; So many things would start to right themselves if only we can get some tax cuts simplification, at least, and some regulation roll back so that job growth can begin and the unemployment rate can come down.

[Kathianne]

The payroll taxes are killing our international competitiveness IMO on top of the debt loads that you mention that many are facing. This is on top of dismal job prospects due to lack of a coherent pro-growth policy for those just coming out; So many things would start to right themselves if only we can get some tax cuts simplification, at least, and some regulation roll back so that job growth can begin and the unemployment rate can come down.

Now if you could only sell that to Obama and the Congressional elites.

[fj1200]

Now if you could only sell that to Obama and the Congressional elites.

And have them admit they're wrong??? :eek:

Hell, I can't even get bingster to respond to my posts. :laugh:

[glockmail]

First things first which was your acknowledgement that the young are stuck paying for the old, second is that it isn't a benefit to pay less for something that you'll never receive, and third your lack of acknowledgement isn't my fault. The amendment process shouldn't be used as a legislative tool.

My counter proposal? Treat SS as the welfare program that it should be; There is no reason that the young should be subsidizing the lifestyles of the retired. This is hilarious. Your plan is to rename social security "welfare". Who do you think will be paying for these old folks? Older folks? Or, is your plan to stop payouts to folks who have taken personal responsibility and have made their own investments along with being forced by GovCo to pay social security taxes? Nice move, punish those who have taken responsibility and reward those who haven't saved. :laugh:

[logroller]

This is hilarious. Your plan is to rename social security "welfare". Who do you think will be paying for these old folks? Older folks? Or, is your plan to stop payouts to folks who have taken personal responsibility and have made their own investments along with being forced by GovCo to pay social security taxes? Nice move, punish those who have taken responsibility and reward those who haven't saved. :laugh:

you think that calling social security 'welfare' is funny; here's a real knee-slapper from the 74th Congress:

The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]PREAMBLE


An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
http://www.ssa.gov/history/35actinx.html

And here's a little tongue in cheek from the Supreme Court.




3. Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." P. 640.

4. In drawing the line between what is "general" welfare, and what is particular, the determination of Congress must be respected by the courts, unless it be plainly arbitrary. P. 640.


5. The concept of "general welfare" is not static, but adapts itself to the crises and necessities of the times. P. 641.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm

What's hilarious is it being called SSI, as in Insurance when it's treated as a pension fund. It's the entitlements that need to be reined in. The cap in monthly payment was capped at $85 in the the SocSecAct; with inflation that's around $1400/mo. Yet currently,
maximum benefit depends on the age you retire. For example, if you retire at your full retirement age in 2013, your maximum benefit would be $2,533. But if you retire at age 62 in 2013, your maximum benefit would be $1,923. If you retire at age 70 in 2013, your maximum benefit would be $3,350. http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-retirement-benefit
so now, even if you retire early you make more than what was originally billed as the maximum under any circumstances.

[fj1200]

This is hilarious. Your plan is to rename social security "welfare". Who do you think will be paying for these old folks? Older folks? Or, is your plan to stop payouts to folks who have taken personal responsibility and have made their own investments along with being forced by GovCo to pay social security taxes? Nice move, punish those who have taken responsibility and reward those who haven't saved. :laugh:

So you think that an entitlement scheme that makes every retiree a potential ward of the state is hilarious? I think it's sad and moral hazard run amok. As LR pointed out the original intent and inevitable expansion of government programs. I'm not "renaming" SS I'm accurately defining what it should be. But I must point out, again, where your error lies; SS will change where "taxes" become contributions to their retirement fund which has full rights of inheritance and transfer and the much smaller tax is used for the the welfare aspect. I don't deny that the workers will still be paying for the retirees, they will just be paying for a whole lot less retirees and those that actually need it. The major error of your scheme was to Constitutionalize a wealth transfer program which continues to pay the old while leaving the young completely out in the cold.

BTW, your last statement is just wrong; not having the guarantee of SS to fund a, more or less, comfortable lifestyle will force the vast majority of the population to fund their own lifestyle. I don't see being old and living on welfare as a "reward," perhaps you do.

My other thought on SS is to provide everyone an equal stipend large enough to subsist and let them plan for their own retirement desires by saving during their working lives and forcing their payroll taxes into a contribution account.

[glockmail]

So you think that an entitlement scheme that makes every retiree a potential ward of the state is hilarious? I think it's sad and moral hazard run amok. As LR pointed out the original intent and inevitable expansion of government programs. I'm not "renaming" SS I'm accurately defining what it should be. But I must point out, again, where your error lies; SS will change where "taxes" become contributions to their retirement fund which has full rights of inheritance and transfer and the much smaller tax is used for the the welfare aspect. I don't deny that the workers will still be paying for the retirees, they will just be paying for a whole lot less retirees and those that actually need it. The major error of your scheme was to Constitutionalize a wealth transfer program which continues to pay the old while leaving the young completely out in the cold.

BTW, your last statement is just wrong; not having the guarantee of SS to fund a, more or less, comfortable lifestyle will force the vast majority of the population to fund their own lifestyle. I don't see being old and living on welfare as a "reward," perhaps you do.

My other thought on SS is to provide everyone an equal stipend large enough to subsist and let them plan for their own retirement desires by saving during their working lives and forcing their payroll taxes into a contribution account. You're obviously confused as to what you wnat and have no plan. First you want to steal the social security funds of those who have financed additional means for themselves, then you want to give everyone a poverty stipend. :laugh:

[fj1200]

You're obviously confused as to what you wnat and have no plan. First you want to steal the social security funds of those who have financed additional means for themselves, then you want to give everyone a poverty stipend. :laugh:

Nope, it's called having multiple thoughts on a particular subject and not having to argue myself into a hole because I can't see the entire picture and alternate possibilities. :shrug:

And no, not stealing anything just acknowledging the realities of the situation. I fully expect that there would be a transition from one plan to another. Interesting how you're now arguing the big government solution. Besides, SCOTUS says that SS contributions do not belong to anyone... oh never mind, that would be something you'll just declare "illegal" and unconstitutional. :slap:

[aboutime]

Nope, it's called having multiple thoughts on a particular subject and not having to argue myself into a hole because I can't see the entire picture and alternate possibilities. :shrug:

And no, not stealing anything just acknowledging the realities of the situation. I fully expect that there would be a transition from one plan to another. Interesting how you're now arguing the big government solution. Besides, SCOTUS says that SS contributions do not belong to anyone... oh never mind, that would be something you'll just declare "illegal" and unconstitutional. :slap:


fj. YOU ARE MORE DANGEROUS TO YOURSELF than anyone here on DP who laughs at your self-impressive tactics to PROVE...to YOU. How dangerous you are.
You'd really be up the creek without a paddle if.....YOU HAD NO AUDIENCE to laugh at you.

[logroller]

Nope, it's called having multiple thoughts on a particular subject and not having to argue myself into a hole because I can't see the entire picture and alternate possibilities. :shrug:

And no, not stealing anything just acknowledging the realities of the situation. I fully expect that there would be a transition from one plan to another. Interesting how you're now arguing the big government solution. Besides, SCOTUS says that SS contributions do not belong to anyone... oh never mind, that would be something you'll just declare "illegal" and unconstitutional. :slap:

Im with ya on the amendment issue; but nonetheless ssi, in its current form raises some constitutional issues. The original text clearly outlined the federal power as oversight for the several States. This makes sense so as to balance the privileges of US citizenship amid the coexistence of State residencies.

This is anecdotal admttedly and I would appreciate someone proving me incorrect; but I sincerely doubt that will happen because I believe I'm correct in my assumption that what we have is purely federal provisioning with no State role in some, if not many of the programs derived from the social security system. That is an affront to the prescribed constitutional role of the Feds in a republic where the Feds are responsible to the States and the States are responsible to the People-- It certainly appears that the Feds have usurped the States' role. I don't believe a constitutional amendment will fix what is already a procedural (if not legislated) violation of the constitutional guarantee to each State a republican form of government.

[Arbo]

Interesting how you're now arguing the big government solution.

The right is no less big government than the left. For the most part the only difference is which part they want to be big.

[fj1200]

Im with ya on the amendment issue; but nonetheless ssi, in its current form raises some constitutional issues. The original text clearly outlined the federal power as oversight for the several States. This makes sense so as to balance the privileges of US citizenship amid the coexistence of State residencies.

This is anecdotal admttedly and I would appreciate someone proving me incorrect; but I sincerely doubt that will happen because I believe I'm correct in my assumption that what we have is purely federal provisioning with no State role in some, if not many of the programs derived from the social security system. That is an affront to the prescribed constitutional role of the Feds in a republic where the Feds are responsible to the States and the States are responsible to the People-- It certainly appears that the Feds have usurped the States' role. I don't believe a constitutional amendment will fix what is already a procedural (if not legislated) violation of the constitutional guarantee to each State a republican form of government.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems you've proven yourself incorrect a couple of times. :poke: We're so far beyond original intent that it begs the question of ever getting back. Unfortunately we will have to rely on the legislative to correct the many ills that we have but that's not really going to happen unless disaster, budgetarily speaking, or moving the ideological window far enough to the right to make the likes of rev happy. :hide:

[glockmail]

Nope, it's called having multiple thoughts on a particular subject and not having to argue myself into a hole because I can't see the entire picture and alternate possibilities. :shrug:

And no, not stealing anything just acknowledging the realities of the situation. I fully expect that there would be a transition from one plan to another. Interesting how you're now arguing the big government solution. Besides, SCOTUS says that SS contributions do not belong to anyone... oh never mind, that would be something you'll just declare "illegal" and unconstitutional. :slap:I'm not arguing the big government solution. My plan gets FedCo out of your pocket completely. :laugh:

[fj1200]

I'm not arguing the big government solution. My plan gets FedCo out of your pocket completely. :laugh:

Except for that part that you propose Constitutionalizing "give me back my money." :slap: Oh no he di'n't.

[glockmail]

Absolutely. Do you propose breaking promises by not paying them back? You must be a Democrat. :slap:

[fj1200]

Absolutely. Do you propose breaking promises by not paying them back? You must be a Democrat. :slap:

At least you understand that you're screwing the younger tax payers who get to foot your retirement. :shrug: You ignore the undeniable future of SS and Medicare and to "fix" it grant government benefits to favored voters. You must be a Democrat. :slap:

Of course we can keep sniping back and forth or we can ponder an actual solution that works. :dunno:

[glockmail]

All you've done is prove how you can't understand a common sense solution, and haven't proposed anything of your own. :laugh:

[fj1200]

All you've done is prove how you can't understand a common sense solution, and haven't proposed anything of your own. :laugh:

I've proven the ridiculousness and real-world failure of your plan and, oh yeah, proposed my own.


I'm not "renaming" SS I'm accurately defining what it should be. But I must point out, again, where your error lies; SS will change where "taxes" become contributions to their retirement fund which has full rights of inheritance and transfer and the much smaller tax is used for the the welfare aspect. I don't deny that the workers will still be paying for the retirees, they will just be paying for a whole lot less retirees and those that actually need it.
...
My other thought on SS is to provide everyone an equal stipend large enough to subsist and let them plan for their own retirement desires by saving during their working lives and forcing their payroll taxes into a contribution account.

Also proving I'm not wedded to a failed scheme.

:roundandround:

EDIT:

Whoa, just had a new idea; we sell of Oregon to fund your retirement. :sweet:

[glockmail]

Oh right that was your silly plan to tax everyone and then only give benefits to those who didn't plan for their own retirement; in other words punish those who take personal responsibility. Obviously, you're a Democrat. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Oh right that was your silly plan to tax everyone and then only give benefits to those who didn't plan for their own retirement; in other words punish those who take personal responsibility. Obviously, you're a Democrat. :laugh:

Clearly you're confused. Since when is a big, fat tax cut and allowing personal ownership of retirement accounts a Democrat plan?

[glockmail]

Since when is punishing self responsibility a Republican plan?

[fj1200]

Since when is punishing self responsibility a Republican plan?

It's not. Thankfully my plan is not that. :) I suggest that the young pay a much lower tax rate for something that they might get or will get, depending on option, whereas you suggest that the young keep paying taxes for something they won't get. :confused: Like it or not your plan has zero chance of passage whereas mine has a slightly higher than zero chance of passage. It also helps when you completely ignore the phase-in period I suggest. :slap:

[glockmail]

So the young "might" get the benefit. What terrible thing would they have to do to get this benefit denied to them?

[fj1200]

So the young "might" get the benefit. What terrible thing would they have to do to get this benefit denied to them?

Haven't you been paying attention? They "might" get it if they are destitute and have no other resources under the SS as welfare argument.

[glockmail]

As I said earlier: "Oh right that was your silly plan to tax everyone and then only give benefits to those who didn't plan for their own retirement; in other words punish those who take personal responsibility. Obviously, you're a Democrat." :laugh:

[fj1200]

As I said earlier: "Oh right that was your silly plan to tax everyone and then only give benefits to those who didn't plan for their own retirement; in other words punish those who take personal responsibility. Obviously, you're a Democrat." :laugh:

Oh brother. Congratulations on pointing out pretty much every tax scheme that this country has. My god you're brilliant. :rolleyes: And now you can completely ignore the fact that your plan pretty much relies on the same thing. It's called welfare and it will be especially hard for the younger tax payers to start to save for their own retirement because you've consigned them to be paying for yours.

[aboutime]

It's not. Thankfully my plan is not that. :) I suggest that the young pay a much lower tax rate for something that they might get or will get, depending on option, whereas you suggest that the young keep paying taxes for something they won't get. :confused: Like it or not your plan has zero chance of passage whereas mine has a slightly higher than zero chance of passage. It also helps when you completely ignore the phase-in period I suggest. :slap:


So, you'd use that kind of reasoning for your plan by not taxing the young for Police, or Fire protection as well...if they don't plan on using it?

[glockmail]

Actually, since I eliminate most of FedCo the young will have plenty of money that they used to pay in taxes to use for their own retirement funds. You don't seem to be able to fathom that simple economic fact. You must be a Democrat. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Actually, since I eliminate most of FedCo the young will have plenty of money that they used to pay in taxes to use for their own retirement funds. You don't seem to be able to fathom that simple economic fact. You must be a Democrat. :laugh:

You seem to not understand your failure in accounting for the unintended consequences of your plan. You must be a Democrat; they come up with so many ways to justify their favoritism. :dunno:

[glockmail]

What unintended consequences?

[fj1200]

What unintended consequences?

:rolleyes:


And now you can completely ignore the fact that your plan pretty much relies on the same thing. It's called welfare and it will be especially hard for the younger tax payers to start to save for their own retirement because you've consigned them to be paying for yours.

Welfare for the old and robbing the young of a portion of their income stream.

[glockmail]

Welfare for the old and robbing the young of a portion of their income stream.


They benefit by paying less into a crappy program over time.

And around we go... :laugh:

[fj1200]

And around we go... :laugh:

Apparently when you don't understand the basics of your own plan. :dunno:

[aboutime]

You seem to not understand your failure in accounting for the unintended consequences of your plan. You must be a Democrat; they come up with so many ways to justify their favoritism. :dunno:


fj. As long as the Obama plan is in effect, and unemployment stays at around 90 Million people, both Old, and Young. How can they...as you insist...be paying for something IF...they are not working, and unable to pay for anything?

Seems like your argument is useless, and self-serving in many respects. You should enjoy being younger, and ineligible to actually work. Making many of us wonder why you even care?

[glockmail]

Apparently when you don't understand the basics of your own plan. :dunno:You're repeating an argument that you've already lost. :laugh:

[fj1200]

You're repeating an argument that you've already lost. :laugh:

Au contraire. You've already admitted your folly.


They ... pay...

[glockmail]

Parsing quotes? How desperate. Here's the complete sentence:
They benefit by paying less into a crappy program over time.

[fj1200]

Parsing quotes? How desperate. Here's the complete sentence:

Nope, just boiling it down to its essence of you the bourgeoisie "getting theirs" on the backs of the proletariat.


They ... pay...

And the original for those who you think don't understand.


They benefit by paying less into a crappy program over time.

[glockmail]

Actually, folks who were forced to pay into the crappy program getting their money back, while the next generations get true freedom with a much smaller government. :coffee:

[fj1200]

Actually, folks who were forced to pay into the crappy program getting their money back, while the next generations get true freedom with a much smaller government. :coffee:

Actually...


... you the bourgeoisie "getting theirs" on the backs of the proletariat.

Not sure why you can't just proclaim it for what it is. :dunno:

[glockmail]

You've failed to prove your point as well as failed to provide an alternative solution, and aren't man enough to admit either. So you insist on repeating the same old, and now we're going around in an unending circle. Because of that, I'll give you the last word. :laugh:

[fj1200]

You've failed to prove your point as well as failed to provide an alternative solution, and aren't man enough to admit either. So you insist on repeating the same old, and now we're going around in an unending circle. Because of that, I'll give you the last word. :laugh:

Proven over and over; why you deny the realities of your own words and plan is beyond me. Also provided an alternative solution; why you've failed to notice is beyond me. But good on ya' mate.