Gotta give the Wall Street Journal some props for their timing on this...
United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread
- Thread starter Tyzuris
- Start date
Gotta give the Wall Street Journal some props for their timing on this...
Let's hope they really are that stupid... It would make 2022 and 2024 a lot easier...
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Social Security is projected to be insolvent a year earlier than previously forecast. (Published 2021)
Annual government reports on the solvency of the programs underscored the questions about the long-term viability of Social Security and Medicare.
No gibs.
Robovski
Well-known member
Social Security is projected to be insolvent a year earlier than previously forecast. (Published 2021)
Annual government reports on the solvency of the programs underscored the questions about the long-term viability of Social Security and Medicare.www.nytimes.com
No gibs.
This is old news to my generation. The fact that this is a ponzi scheme where more money has come in than has been paid out was clear a long time ago for the Gen X crowd. And it also misses the idea that the government can't just decide to spend it's way out of the situation. So this is less Biden and more just how this was set up in the first place.
StormEagle
Well-known member
Social Security is projected to be insolvent a year earlier than previously forecast. (Published 2021)
Annual government reports on the solvency of the programs underscored the questions about the long-term viability of Social Security and Medicare.
No gibs.
It’s basically been open knowledge that Social Security was going down the shitter since my parents generation.
The boomer generation is probably the last one that will see any payouts from social, and even that is questionable at this point.
Any generation after that is going to get a good old fuck you and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Any talk of reform of the program also gets shouted down, and I highly doubt that the government is going to shut down such a lucrative piggy bank.
So we’ll be paying into social for the rest of our working lives, only to be told to go fuck ourselves and die in a rest home when it comes time to draw payments.
Isn’t the government just grand, kids?
King Arts
Well-known member
Social security itself may not pay for itself but can’t the people still get social security if we take the money from another government program and reroute to social security instead?Social Security is projected to be insolvent a year earlier than previously forecast. (Published 2021)
Annual government reports on the solvency of the programs underscored the questions about the long-term viability of Social Security and Medicare.
No gibs.
bintananth
behind a desk
Yes, but then the questions are "which government programs?", "how much do we need to take?", and, for a politician, the most important one: "could this result in me being voted out of office?".
They're playing a game of kick-the-can where the can gets kicked to those who aren't old enough to vote yet or not even born yet.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Quite literally, social security would probably be fine if the government didn't constantly take money for it to put into other government programs. Said politicians are not going to like hearing they not only lost that sweet cash cow that was feeding their programs, but now their programs are going to have to be stripped to let the poor cow get a good feed in.
StormEagle
Well-known member
Honestly, if social security was going to be a thing, there should have been a constitutional amendment making it illegal for the government to use money from it to fund other projects.
Anyone with a brain and a tiny bit of common sense could have told people that some politician was going to get the bright idea to raid it for funds.
Doomsought
Well-known member
Social security and other federal welfare programs are blatantly unconstitutional, but the Supreme court was intimidated into letting it pass using the threat of stacking the supreme court.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Well, it might be better to say they will (if nothing changes) be the last ones to see payouts nearly as generous as they are currently; "running out of money" just means the payments will be reduced to what the yearly inflow is; apparently it's projected to be about a 25% cut.
King Arts
Well-known member
Military? Maybe cut the Navy we have over a dozen carriers we could get rid of two or three and still outnumber the next largest navy 2 to 1.
What is your argument on why welfare is unconstitutional? Unless you are saying the Federal government does not have the right to levy taxes at all, I don't see how it would be unconstitutional. The Government can spend it's money however it wants, congress could vote to use it on strippers to literally give them lap dances while they are on the floor of congress voting on bills or whatever and as long as it was legally voted on it is legitimate. Obviously they would get voted out the next election or maybe even recalled. But it's not unconstitutional there is no part of the constitution that says the federal government can't give money to whoever it wants.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
It's called the Tenth Amendment. And it does limit the powers of the Federal Government, quite dramatically so.
VicSage
Carpenter, Cobbler, Chirugeon, Dataminer.
There is also the area of Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which gives a clear delineation of the powers the Federal government DOES have. Welfare is not amongst those powers. Post roads are. Military power is. Even taxation is. But the taking of someone's well earned living to give to another is not. If it is not there, or in a subsequent amendment, it is an illegal power.
bintananth
behind a desk
Amendment 16: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Plus, you're forgetting about Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
BTW: "provide for the general welfare" is part of the text of the US Constitution.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 is also somewhat vague in terms of what our government is allowed to spend our taxes on:
One could argue that "general Welfare" includes welfare as we know it today.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Taking 'provide for the general welfare' to mean 'spend money however we want' is a blatantly fallacious way of interpreting that part of the constitution. It is describing the purpose for which the government should act, not an enumerated power.
The Tenth Amendment clearly and explicitly limits the authority and remit of the Federal Government. The Federalist Papers and other documents from the founders make the intent clear.
Literally anything can be justified under 'provide for the general welfare' if it is interpreted as a power, rather than a goal for which the enumerated powers are to be used. If that was the case, there would be no point to the Tenth Amendment, because all powers would then be delegated to the Federal Government.
Alternately, if the 'general welfare' was to mean 'the government can do anything it wants,' then the Tenth Amendment, being an amendment modifying the original constitution, restricts that down to 'the powers delegated' instead.
Either way, the Federal Government has limits; this is not complicated.