Federal judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional

[badger6]

That is absolutely not true.  The worst case estimates is you will see benefits that is 25% less than the current level (adjusted for inflation).   

I would think that the worst case scenario would be that the government keeps on with their borrowing, spending, and printing as much fake money as they can. With current deficit and spending levels unsustainable, the dollar could crash and hyperinflation could set in causing a world wide depression. In that case Social Security is a moot point. We are well on our way at this point, 25-30 is a very long time to be forecasting these things !!!

[Spider-Dan]

I'll believe it when I see it. But why should I be happy getting 25% less than you? Its still the same thing as stealing.

So wait... it's "stealing" when you get 25% less in benefits (adjusted for inflation) than the current level?

What is it, then, when life expectancy rises and retirees are able to live longer (and collect more SS paychecks) than previous generations?  Is that also "theft"?
What is it called when you drive on a road that was paid for by taxpayers before you were born?  Are you "embezzling"?

Let's try to keep some semblance of rationality in the terms we are using, please.

[Dave Gray]

I don't think social security is sustainable, and needs to be reformed or ended.  However, it's far from larceny.  It's a comparison that's so friggin' bonkers that it's not a common ground to start from.

[Frimp]

Dan, I don't think that I'm going to see a penny of the money I paid in. That's my personal belief. If that turns out to be true, then yes its stealing.

[Spider-Dan]

There are lots of things that you pay taxes into and you, personally, never see money back.  Is the construction of F16 fighter jets "stealing"?  I know I've never seen a penny of the money I paid towards buying those.

You might be inclined to say that you, as a member of American society, benefit from the protection that our military provides; I would argue that you also benefit from a society in which the elderly are not destitute.  I'm virtually certain that, somewhere along the road, you have a family member that has benefited from Social Security.

Another big question to consider is: how could Social Security run out of money?  Notwithstanding the myth that Social Security is teetering on the brink of collapse, the only reason why the U.S. Govenrment is not sitting on a multi-trillion dollar Social Security surplus is because politicians in the '80s spent away the SS surpluses; they decimated revenue with huge tax cuts but ramped up military spending, so the money had to come from somewhere.

So if you really want to talk about who "stole" your money...

edit: To be clear, you originally said that only getting 75% of what you paid in is "stealing" from you.  That's simply absurd in the context of any tax that you pay.

[Frimp]

No, I originally said I wouldn't be getting anything back. Hoodie then mentioned the 25% less and I responded to that. Still, SS was supposed to be set aside for retirement. Not for other programs such as military funding as you mentioned. If I (or you or anyone else) don't get it back, its no different than stealing.

If I do get it back, then I'm a goof conspiracy nut. But, I don't think that's the case.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Come on guys, you can do better than that, ha ha. As you can see from the post above, I didn't bring up Social Security at all.

You right.  You didn't bring it up.  I brought it up as an example of a similar program THAT is constitutional.  Responding by debating SS is moronic.

If you want to contradict my point on health care explain what is different between Universal Heath Care and SS that makes SS constitutional but Heath Care unconstitutional.   Stating that you believe that both is unconstitutional is just factually incorrect and the equivalent of arguing that Heath Care is unconstitutional because the moon is made of cheese. 

[Spider-Dan]

No, I originally said I wouldn't be getting anything back. Hoodie then mentioned the 25% less and I responded to that. Still, SS was supposed to be set aside for retirement. Not for other programs such as military funding as you mentioned.

Incorrect.  SS revenue is supposed to go towards paying current benefits for other people.  Your benefits are supposed to come from the contibutors of that time, with the surplus (from many generations of contributors, not just your generation) serving to offset any deficit between revenue and payout.

[Pappy13]

That is absolutely not true.  The worst case estimates is you will see benefits that is 25% less than the current level (adjusted for inflation).   

I'm 47, what do the estimates show for me?  Just curious.

[Frimp]

Incorrect.  SS revenue is supposed to go towards paying current benefits for other people.  Your benefits are supposed to come from the contibutors of that time, with the surplus (from many generations of contributors, not just your generation) serving to offset any deficit between revenue and payout.

You proved my point. If it goes bankrupt, I will get nothing.

[Spider-Dan]

There is no logical reason to believe that Social Security will be paying out zero benefits at any point in your lifetime, unless the federal government as a whole has collapsed upon itself and the United States as a political entity has ceased to exist.*

*the demise of the United States of America is not a logical reason

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I'm 47, what do the estimates show for me?  Just curious.

If SS taxes are not raised, then benefits will have to be cut by about 25% sometime around 2040. 

I anticipate that something in between will happen.  An increase in the SS tax rate of 10-15% and a cut in benefits of about 10-15% will occur with in the next few years closing the gap between projected income and outgo. 

[badger6]

You right.  You didn't bring it up.  I brought it up as an example of a similar program THAT is constitutional.  Responding by debating SS is moronic.

You asked me a question !!!

Gov't can require I pay taxes. 

There is a law requiring I save for retirement.  Or is social security unconstitutional too?  

I answered your question and gave you my opinion. If you have to say that I am "moronic' because I answered your question and told you what I thought, so be it. That reflects on you, not me. But if you want to start insulting each other, we can do that also.

If you want to contradict my point on health care explain what is different between Universal Heath Care and SS that makes SS constitutional but Heath Care unconstitutional.   Stating that you believe that both is unconstitutional is just factually incorrect and the equivalent of arguing that Heath Care is unconstitutional because the moon is made of cheese. 

Do you dispute the fact that Roosevelt had to threaten to replace the sitting supreme court Justices in order to get SS passed ? Why would he have to do that ? Is the supreme court perfect and always "gets it right" ? I don't think that they are infallible in the face of political pressure. And given the fact that they were threatened or coerced before they ruled. The courts finding has to be questioned and therefore constitutionality has to questioned.

Not to mention that social security is a tax, not an entitlement. Therefore Congress could pass a law stopping all Social Security and Medicare payments tomorrow, and no citizen could do anything about it even though they paid into the system.


Now as far as healthcare goes. Why do I think that it is unconstitutional ? For a totally different reason....................

The Bill of Rights - Sets limitations on the power of the United States Federal government, protecting the natural rights of liberty and property  including freedom of speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association, as well as the right to keep and bear arms.

Correct ?

9th Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
Correct ?

10th Amendment – Powers of States and people.

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.


Correct ?

Under article I section 8, nothing close to health care is an enumerated power of congress. Any powers that are not enumerated to congress under article 1 section 8 are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The constitution does not give congress the power to levy a tax on people just for inactivity. Or in other words, a tax on just being alive.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

You asked me a question !!!
 

I answered your question and gave you my opinion. If you have to say that I am "moronic' because I answered your question and told you what I thought, so be it. That reflects on you, not me. But if you want to start insulting each other, we can do that also.

Your response was moronic given that SS is constitutional that is a FACT and not up for debate.

Do you dispute the fact that Roosevelt had to threaten to replace the sitting supreme court Justices in order to get SS passed ? Why would he have to do that ? Is the supreme court perfect and always "gets it right" ? I don't think that they are infallible in the face of political pressure. And given the fact that they were threatened or coerced before they ruled. The courts finding has to be questioned and therefore constitutionality has to questioned.

I am aware of the history of the passing and while you paint the history in broad extremes I am not going to debated them as discussing the constitutionality of SS is nothing more than the Chewbacca defense. 

Not to mention that social security is a tax, not an entitlement. Therefore Congress could pass a law stopping all Social Security and Medicare payments tomorrow, and no citizen could do anything about it even though they paid into the system.

This is true.  But anyone who voted like that would be out of a job at the next election.

Now as far as healthcare goes. Why do I think that it is unconstitutional ? For a totally different reason....................

Finally. 

The Bill of Rights - Sets limitations on the power of the United States Federal government, protecting the natural rights of liberty and property  including freedom of speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association, as well as the right to keep and bear arms.

Correct ?

You hit the highlights of the first two.  But skipping over 3 to 8 we get to your favorite 2. Nine and Ten. 

9th Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
Correct ?

Correct that is the text.

Very rarely had the court found that amendment to mean much.

10th Amendment – Powers of States and people.

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.


Correct ?

[/quote]

Once again you got the text right.  That amendment has largely been overtaken by the 14th.  One amendement can amend another and the 14th pretty much took the teeth out of that one.

Under article I section 8, nothing close to health care is an enumerated power of congress. Any powers that are not enumerated to congress under article 1 section 8 are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The constitution does not give congress the power to levy a tax on people just for inactivity. Or in other words, a tax on just being alive.

Congress has the power to tax and spend.  First part that section as amended by #16.  Actually you don't need the 16th.  As if each person in each state is being taxed equally it would be allowed even without the 16th. 

[Spider-Dan]

So where in the Constitution does it specifically enumerate the power to enact Social Security?

badger6, you've run into a brick wall.  Unless you can explain why Social Security is constitutional but the PPACA isn't, you're dead in the water.  It is an ESTABLISHED FACT that Social Security is constitutional, in EXACTLY the same sense that the right to have an abortion is constitutional, or eminent domain is constitutional, or burning a flag is constitutional, or limitless political donations are (now) constitutional.  If the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, the Constitution says that they are right.  If you disagree, you are wrong.  That's literally the way it works.

So in order for you to make a reasonably rational argument against Obamacare, you need to do two things:

1) acknowledge that Social Security is, in fact, constitutionally valid (i.e. illustrate that you understand the definition of what is and is not constitutional)
2) show how Obamacare is different from Social Security in a way that makes Obamacare unconstitutional

Otherwise, you're wasting time.