On Dec 19, 9:20 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Dec 19, 5:25 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
SNIP

We both also know that individuals living on welfare are an
insignificant voting block, and are not a significant source of
campaign funding either.
The number of older people extracting more from the system than
they ever put is large and growing. They are every bit the
same as the putative "welfare" recipients, they just don't like
being told so.

I realize that is the socialist perspective and I reject it.

First of all, any retirement plan functions like insurance,
some claimants get more than they put in while others
get less. Social Security was running a surplus up until
the time that LBJ convinced the Congress to merge it into
the General Fund, even without investing the money.

Social Security has become a Ponzi scam only because the
Feds managed it like Ponzi. Had it been managed responsibly,
there would be no problem.

That's not the only reason. The underlying root cause that
LBJ did what he did is that the sheeple demanded more and more
from government while simultaneously objecting to increased
taxation. The money had to come from somewhere and LBJ practiced
some creative accounting.

I'm not so sure that the people demanded we go to war in Vietnam,
so much as they were indifferent about it until there were half a
million US troops in theater.


Even if he had not, though, it is far from clear that the system
was sustainable in the long-term. People are living longer and longer.
A whole generation from the 1960s has failed, on average, to save
much for their own retirement (partly because many did not trust
capital markets and partly because many wanted to wish socialism
into existence in this nation - the exceptions prove the rule.)

It would only be sustainable if the monies were invested.




People retiring today have spent a lifetime paying into their
SSA, or in some cases being married to someone who has.
Had that money been invested, as any good retirement fund
should be, there would be no problem. Their current situation

Social security was NOT EVER conceived to be a "good retirement
fund". It was supposed to be "supplemental". The aforementioned
refugees from the 1960s have decided that it is to be the
former, not the latter, and have the bullying voting block to
make it so.

Regardless of how much it was to provide, a promise was made
to the payees that they would receive benefits later and only a
dishonest person belyaches about having to make good on that
promise.


is quite analogous to that of a person who paid into a private
retirement plan and had their balance embezzled by the
management. They expect nothing more than would be
available were it nor for the gross malfeasance of the Federal
Government, holding the malfeasor responsible for it.

Mostly I agree with what you wrote, with two important exceptions:

1) The "rights" under Social Security/Medicare have been steadily
expanding. It started out as a supplemental insurance program,
but now is increasingly seen as much more than that.

The 'rights' under Social Security were established by promising
benefits later in exchange for payments now, which is how any
retirement plan works.

The
Bush "drug benefit" is completely off the reservation, without
merit, and excruciatingly expensive.

Medicare is another issue entirely.

Again, can you provide a number for the estimated cost of the
prescription drug plan? I'd like to see how that compares to the
estimated trillion dollar budget for the war with Iraq.


2) If all this had been privately done, as should have been the
case, people who abused the system or stole from it could at
least have been jailed for embezzlement (or worse). What
are we going to do to the political scoundrels that are
bankrupting the system?

Name places for them and put their images on stamps and coins.

Isn't it ironic that LBJ (who was a
malignant fool on many, many levels) used one form of socialism
to pay for another? The results speak for themselves.


The Vietnam war was not a form of socialism.



Whether or not the operation of such a mandatory retirement plan
falls within the Constitutional authority of the Federal Government
is an entirely separate matter.

It certainly does not appear as one of the enumerated powers.


IMHO, the proper course of action in the 1930's would have been
a very small number, perhaps 2 or 3 Constitutional amendments,
rather than twisting the ICC and other clauses beyond recognition.
The approach to the interpretation of the ICC implied by Thomas'
dissent in the medical marijuana case should be how the ICC
is generally viewed.

Note that agricultural subsidies would remain Constitutional as
they only apply restrict commodities sold in interstate commerce.

--

FF