The Republicans New Deal for Social Security

S

Sarang01

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
Discuss here. I use to be for it until I heard Mike Malloy make the point about it not just being there for retirement but should you die your son or daughter would receive some of your benefits to help support themselves. He implied this isn't suppose to be an investment thing.
Also after hearing more about this while I was initially for it I'm starting to like it even less. Some of the great things I THOUGHT would be implemented in it aren't. For example I have no problem with the money in the private accounts being used on a Mutual Fund type thing but I want to pick WHATEVER stock I want as part of my setup. I've heard about having to pick from a table of stocks. No, no, NO! This is exactly what I said I didn't want to see, Republicans using Social Security as a kickback to companies that fund them. This is absolutely unacceptable. At least if you're going to have stocks let people pick those they want or feel comfortable with. Also since it's the stock market there should be an extra 1-2% or more to cover people who have some of their stock PLUMMET and it doesn't recover adequately near retirement age. This insurance should cover this shortfall.
If you say no to this last bit then frankly I think you have no legs to stand on in terms of touting private accounts especially when you consider the enormous cost it will take to transition the system over to these accounts. Honestly if this doesn't work or if we want a more cost effective or more gain happy version of Social Security why not do what Alan Greenspan suggest and copy the "Thrift Savings Plan" that Federal employees use. I mean Bob Brinker advocated for it for GODSAKES.
 
I think I should be able to take the money to Vegas and bet on Craps.

Allowing people to pick individual stocks would add risk to a venture that's already far too risky. Saying that the government should give you more money in case your bet doesn't pay off, well...
 
This is another counter argument against the Social Security Privitazation plan though Drocket. You better believe that if this passes and if I want AMD but they only give me the choice of Intel I'll raise hell. I'm saying I don't want this to end up as a kickback to their corporate buddies which I'm sure it already is.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']For example I have no problem with the money in the private accounts being used on a Mutual Fund type thing but I want to pick WHATEVER stock I want as part of my setup. I've heard about having to pick from a table of stocks. No, no, NO! This is exactly what I said I didn't want to see, Republicans using Social Security as a kickback to companies that fund them. This is absolutely unacceptable. At least if you're going to have stocks let people pick those they want or feel comfortable with.[/quote]

I fully agree. Besides, if a company like Enron can go down, what's the point of limiting which stocks can be bought?

Also since it's the stock market there should be an extra 1-2% or more to cover people who have some of their stock PLUMMET and it doesn't recover adequately near retirement age. This insurance should cover this shortfall.
Click to expand...

Actually I disagree with this. Why not give people the option between T-Bills and stocks. If you choose stocks and lose, well that's your own fault.

Frankly, I wouldn't shed a tear if social security was put to rest for good.
 
The entire reason they limit people to specific stocks/bonds/mutual funds to buy is to prevent people from losing their shirt, not to give kickbacks to certain companies (I hope...). You don't want some fool investing all his SS money in junk bonds, for example. There should be a reasonable list to include proven mutual funds and bonds. I wouldn't even include individual stocks because of the possible kickback issue.
 
[quote name='camoor']Frankly, I wouldn't shed a tear if social security was put to rest for good.[/quote]

Wow, I completely agree. :shock: :wink: Make it voluntary or abolish it is what I would like to see, although more control is better than no change.
 
The problem is you end up with all kinds of old people worried about fundage or then having problems supporting themselves. I hate to say it but if you gave more people money that are living paycheck to paycheck it would just go to living expenses so what the hell do we do when they get old?
I hate to say this and I know it sounds cliche and I'll be attacked on it but we need to have Social Security just for some of the publics own good.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']The problem is you end up with all kinds of old people worried about fundage or then having problems supporting themselves. I hate to say it but if you gave more people money that are living paycheck to paycheck it would just go to living expenses so what the hell do we do when they get old?
I hate to say this and I know it sounds cliche and I'll be attacked on it but we need to have Social Security just for some of the publics own good.[/quote]

I don't need the government to take care of me, other than defending me from invaders and criminals, thanks.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The entire reason they limit people to specific stocks/bonds/mutual funds to buy is to prevent people from losing their shirt, not to give kickbacks to certain companies (I hope...). You don't want some fool investing all his SS money in junk bonds, for example. There should be a reasonable list to include proven mutual funds and bonds. I wouldn't even include individual stocks because of the possible kickback issue.[/quote]

I'd much rather have a list of stocks you can't invest in. That way, the public would be restricted from investing in junk stocks and pump-and-dumps (and other mafia-controlled stock schemes) while leaving small, risky, but innovative companies in the running for those precious social security dollars.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='Sarang01']The problem is you end up with all kinds of old people worried about fundage or then having problems supporting themselves. I hate to say it but if you gave more people money that are living paycheck to paycheck it would just go to living expenses so what the hell do we do when they get old?
I hate to say this and I know it sounds cliche and I'll be attacked on it but we need to have Social Security just for some of the publics own good.[/quote]

I don't need the government to take care of me, other than defending me from invaders and criminals, thanks.[/quote]

I didn't specifically say you.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't need the government to take care of me, other than defending me from invaders and criminals, thanks.[/quote]

Unfortunately, I fear that you're the exception rather than the rule here. Far too many people in the US live beyond their means (maxing out credit cards, defaulting on loans, etc.), and when they get old, these same people are still going to be struggling to survive.

I understand that you don't feel you'll be one of these people (and thus you don't care about Social Security), but the majority of Americans (certainly over half) will need that benefit when they reach retirement age. As the saying goes, "it's not all about you."
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi3'][quote name='elprincipe']I don't need the government to take care of me, other than defending me from invaders and criminals, thanks.[/quote]

Unfortunately, I fear that you're the exception rather than the rule here. Far too many people in the US live beyond their means (maxing out credit cards, defaulting on loans, etc.), and when they get old, these same people are still going to be struggling to survive.

I understand that you don't feel you'll be one of these people (and thus you don't care about Social Security), but the majority of Americans (certainly over half) will need that benefit when they reach retirement age. As the saying goes, "it's not all about you."[/quote]

American people deserve a fair wage for their services. They deserve fair, globally competitive prices on prescription drugs. They have the right not to be scammed by the Enrons or Worldcoms of the world.

In America you deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see anything in there about the government making sure that you're taken care of in your old age (In elementary school they told us the story of the grasshopper and the ant, the lazy grasshopper doesn't do so well in the winter).

Now I don't like seeing people starve and there should be some provision that keeps the most unfortunate of old people (just like all people) above the poverty line if they want it. However throwing a big chunk of our money under the proverbial government matress for safekeeping has to be one of the most inane anti-capitalistic, anti-American policies that I ever heard of. Go figure that it was thought up by a Texan Prez (LBJ)
 
[quote name='camoor']

Now I don't like seeing people starve and there should be some provision that keeps the most unfortunate of old people (just like all people) above the poverty line if they want it. [/quote]


That provision is called social security.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='camoor']

Now I don't like seeing people starve and there should be some provision that keeps the most unfortunate of old people (just like all people) above the poverty line if they want it. [/quote]


That provision is called social security.[/quote]

Actually in my world it's called charity.

Social security is mandatory retirement insurance.
 
[quote name='camoor']


In America you deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see anything in there about the government making sure that you're taken care of in your old age (In elementary school they told us the story of the grasshopper and the ant, the lazy grasshopper doesn't do so well in the winter).

[/quote]

that's because your looking at the wrong document..

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

some folks say it is right there.
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi3'][quote name='elprincipe']I don't need the government to take care of me, other than defending me from invaders and criminals, thanks.[/quote]

Unfortunately, I fear that you're the exception rather than the rule here. Far too many people in the US live beyond their means (maxing out credit cards, defaulting on loans, etc.), and when they get old, these same people are still going to be struggling to survive.

I understand that you don't feel you'll be one of these people (and thus you don't care about Social Security), but the majority of Americans (certainly over half) will need that benefit when they reach retirement age. As the saying goes, "it's not all about you."[/quote]

Obviously it's not all about me. However, I do feel that everyone would be better off with their own money instead of filtering it through the government, which takes a cut, gets a crappy rate of return, and then gives it back to you, as if you're supposed to be grateful to get back something they took away in the name of forcing you to save for retirement NOW (instead of, say, buying a house or something). I wish I had no part in Social Security because it's terrible for me personally, and I think it's terrible for most people. And we need to wean everyone possible off of government-supplied fat ASAP if you ask me.
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='camoor']


In America you deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see anything in there about the government making sure that you're taken care of in your old age (In elementary school they told us the story of the grasshopper and the ant, the lazy grasshopper doesn't do so well in the winter).

[/quote]

that's because your looking at the wrong document..

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

some folks say it is right there.[/quote]

Promote is not the same as mandate or provide. "Promote the general welfare" generally is taken to mean provide for things that can only realistically be done by all of us together, such as build roads and bridges, assign wireless frequencies, regulate things when necessary, etc.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='usickenme'][quote name='camoor']


In America you deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see anything in there about the government making sure that you're taken care of in your old age (In elementary school they told us the story of the grasshopper and the ant, the lazy grasshopper doesn't do so well in the winter).

[/quote]

that's because your looking at the wrong document..

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

some folks say it is right there.[/quote]

Promote is not the same as mandate or provide. "Promote the general welfare" generally is taken to mean provide for things that can only realistically be done by all of us together, such as build roads and bridges, assign wireless frequencies, regulate things when necessary, etc.[/quote]

Very well put. I'd also argue that the general welfare is harmed by social security.

Most people who can't figure out how to save enough for retirement are going to be in financial trouble way before then. Why are the rest of us paying into an unwanted system because of a group that is probably already a burden on the state's finances? Make sure they don't starve and their kids are well looked after? Sure. Take away some of everyone's money so we don't spend it on candy instead of retirement savngs? No offense, but I already have two parents and even they have no say in how I spend my money after I turned 18.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='usickenme'][quote name='camoor']


In America you deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see anything in there about the government making sure that you're taken care of in your old age (In elementary school they told us the story of the grasshopper and the ant, the lazy grasshopper doesn't do so well in the winter).

[/quote]

that's because your looking at the wrong document..

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

some folks say it is right there.[/quote]

Promote is not the same as mandate or provide. "Promote the general welfare" generally is taken to mean provide for things that can only realistically be done by all of us together, such as build roads and bridges, assign wireless frequencies, regulate things when necessary, etc.[/quote]

the problem is that is one interpretation. This has always been up for debate. It is only "taken to mean provide" by folks who want to minimize federal power. In fact, the Supreme court ruled explicity in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis that the Social Security tax IS justified by that very clause. So NO, it is on "generally" taken to mean the opposite.

It is also mentioned twice in the Constitution. The second mention also notes that Congress has the power to raise funds and pass laws in order to promote this general welfare.

Besides your examples are incorrect. Building Roads and Bridges ARE mandated. You don't have a choice. Additionally, "promotion" can take place a variety of ways including mandates. I urged you to seek all of the definitions of the word.

Those few little words have caused a rather interesting debate throughout the years.
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='usickenme'][quote name='camoor']


In America you deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see anything in there about the government making sure that you're taken care of in your old age (In elementary school they told us the story of the grasshopper and the ant, the lazy grasshopper doesn't do so well in the winter).

[/quote]

that's because your looking at the wrong document..

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

some folks say it is right there.[/quote]

Promote is not the same as mandate or provide. "Promote the general welfare" generally is taken to mean provide for things that can only realistically be done by all of us together, such as build roads and bridges, assign wireless frequencies, regulate things when necessary, etc.[/quote]

the problem is that is one interpretation. This has always been up for debate. It is only "taken to mean provide" by folks who want to minimize federal power. In fact, the Supreme court ruled explicity in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis that the Social Security tax IS justified by that very clause. So NO, it is on "generally" taken to mean the opposite.

It is also mentioned twice in the Constitution. The second mention also notes that Congress has the power to raise funds and pass laws in order to promote this general welfare.

Besides your examples are incorrect. Building Roads and Bridges ARE mandated. You don't have a choice. Additionally, "promotion" can take place a variety of ways including mandates. I urged you to seek all of the definitions of the word.

Those few little words have caused a rather interesting debate throughout the years.[/quote]

I seriously doubt that the founding fathers meant for the American government to take away part of it's citizen's money, and then make the determination when the citizens were old enough to spend it. The founding fathers didn't even like income tax.

Besides, taking a loose definition of "general welfare", you could enact every tenet of a socialized democracy. Heck, I think welfare works against the general welfare.
 
[quote name='camoor']

I seriously doubt that the founding fathers meant for the American government to take away part of it's citizen's money, and then make the determination when the citizens were old enough to spend it. The founding fathers didn't even like income tax.

Besides, taking a loose definition of "general welfare", you could enact every tenet of a socialized democracy. Heck, I think welfare works against the general welfare.[/quote]

Wel "income tax" is a specific tax but if you remember your history it wasn't taxation they dispised but "taxation without representation".

Additionally I refer you to Article 1. Section 8 of the US Constitution

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clearly they included a mechanism for Congress to collect taxes.

You are right to a point. The founding father didn't meant for the Constitution to specifically provide Social Security. They also didn't "mean" for it give black people rights, women rights, to regulate the stock market, to create national parks, enforce environmental law or dozens of other government interactions now present. The beauty of the Constitution is that it allowed for these things to be added as necessary through the legislative process.

You are also correct about it being used to enacted tenants of socialism BUT remember we have a process that those tenants would have to work through. It could also be twisted to enforce any number of right wing causes ( forced school prayer, pro-life agenda, a certain morality) in the guise of general welfare. You see, It works both ways.

The funny thing is, this same debate occured at the time of the writing of the Constitution as well.
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='camoor']

I seriously doubt that the founding fathers meant for the American government to take away part of it's citizen's money, and then make the determination when the citizens were old enough to spend it. The founding fathers didn't even like income tax.

Besides, taking a loose definition of "general welfare", you could enact every tenet of a socialized democracy. Heck, I think welfare works against the general welfare.[/quote]

Wel "income tax" is a specific tax but if you remember your history it wasn't taxation they dispised but "taxation without representation".

Additionally I refer you to Article 1. Section 8 of the US Constitution

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clearly they included a mechanism for Congress to collect taxes.

You are right to a point. The founding father didn't meant for the Constitution to specifically provide Social Security. They also didn't "mean" for it give black people rights, women rights, to regulate the stock market, to create national parks, enforce environmental law or dozens of other government interactions now present. The beauty of the Constitution is that it allowed for these things to be added as necessary through the legislative process.

You are also correct about it being used to enacted tenants of socialism BUT remember we have a process that those tenants would have to work through. It could also be twisted to enforce any number of right wing causes ( forced school prayer, pro-life agenda, a certain morality) in the guise of general welfare. You see, It works both ways.

The funny thing is, this same debate occured at the time of the writing of the Constitution as well.[/quote]

I believe what I said still stands. The founding fathers would not have advocated income tax in their time (I would argue that an efficient governement would not need to collect it even in ours). It's somewhat disengenous to say that the founding fathers didn't mean for the constitiution to do benefitial things like grant black rights. Sure, there were certain populist statutues in the document, but I would argue that many of the most important figures including Washington and Jefferson disagreed with the practice of slavery but were pragmatic enough to understand that an outright ban would have never been approved.

However I would say that most were opposed to a government that decides how the people will spend even a portion of their "hard earned". Take taxes to protect me, promote education, provide charity for the less fortunate (IE the handicapped, mentally challenged, and mentally ill), etc but don't force a fully functioning adult to place his/her money into the government's poorly run retirement plan.
 
[quote name='camoor']
I believe what I said still stands. The founding fathers would not have advocated income tax in their time (I would argue that an efficient governement would not need to collect it even in ours). It's somewhat disengenous to say that the founding fathers didn't mean for the constitiution to do benefitial things like grant black rights. Sure, there were certain populist statutues in the document, but I would argue that many of the most important figures including Washington and Jefferson disagreed with the practice of slavery but were pragmatic enough to understand that an outright ban would have never been approved.

However I would say that most were opposed to a government that decides how the people will spend even a portion of their "hard earned". Take taxes to protect me, promote education, provide charity for the less fortunate (IE the handicapped, mentally challenged, and mentally ill), etc but don't force a fully functioning adult to place his/her money into the government's poorly run retirement plan.[/quote]

Camoor, you do realize jefferson and washington owned slaves, don't you? That's the problem when we idealize people, we try to make them acceptable in modern society when they actually would be condemned for many of the things they did. They were not the type of slave owners who believed slavery was 100% correct, they had problems with it and made some attempts to moderate it (such as trying to make it easier to free slaves), but in the end they were still racists who tolerated, and practiced, slavery. Their ideas would not be acceptable in modern mainstream society, and no modern political party would want anything to do with them if they existed, with their same ideas, today.
 
[quote name='camoor'] It's somewhat disengenous to say that the founding fathers didn't mean for the constitiution to do benefitial things like grant black rights. .[/quote]


Wow you really, really, really missed the point (really). The point was the the founders couldn't forsee everything that the future government needed to do so they simply outlined the intent of the constitution (along with some specific items they wanted at the time). So, in the future the US gov't could add certain "beneficial things".

also were do you get "poorly run retirement plan"? It is actually more efficiently run than any other gov't program and much more efficient than private retirement plans. I mean, if you don't like the idea. That is one thing but you don't have to lie about it. I think you ought to do some research on what old age was like before SS before you go around romanticizing the past.

btw..do you channel the founding fathers or something because you sure seem to know exactly what they think. Next time you are talking to TJ, ask him about the internet.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor']
I believe what I said still stands. The founding fathers would not have advocated income tax in their time (I would argue that an efficient governement would not need to collect it even in ours). It's somewhat disengenous to say that the founding fathers didn't mean for the constitiution to do benefitial things like grant black rights. Sure, there were certain populist statutues in the document, but I would argue that many of the most important figures including Washington and Jefferson disagreed with the practice of slavery but were pragmatic enough to understand that an outright ban would have never been approved.

However I would say that most were opposed to a government that decides how the people will spend even a portion of their "hard earned". Take taxes to protect me, promote education, provide charity for the less fortunate (IE the handicapped, mentally challenged, and mentally ill), etc but don't force a fully functioning adult to place his/her money into the government's poorly run retirement plan.[/quote]

Camoor, you do realize jefferson and washington owned slaves, don't you? That's the problem when we idealize people, we try to make them acceptable in modern society when they actually would be condemned for many of the things they did. They were not the type of slave owners who believed slavery was 100% correct, they had problems with it and made some attempts to moderate it (such as trying to make it easier to free slaves), but in the end they were still racists who tolerated, and practiced, slavery. Their ideas would not be acceptable in modern mainstream society, and no modern political party would want anything to do with them if they existed, with their same ideas, today.[/quote]

Well, Washington freed all of his slaves upon his death and Jefferson, well he was more like Deniro then any of his contemporaries.
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='camoor'] It's somewhat disengenous to say that the founding fathers didn't mean for the constitiution to do benefitial things like grant black rights. .[/quote]


Wow you really, really, really missed the point (really). The point was the the founders couldn't forsee everything that the future government needed to do so they simply outlined the intent of the constitution (along with some specific items they wanted at the time). So, in the future the US gov't could add certain "beneficial things".

also were do you get "poorly run retirement plan"? It is actually more efficiently run than any other gov't program and much more efficient than private retirement plans. I mean, if you don't like the idea. That is one thing but you don't have to lie about it. I think you ought to do some research on what old age was like before SS before you go around romanticizing the past.

btw..do you channel the founding fathers or something because you sure seem to know exactly what they think. Next time you are talking to TJ, ask him about the internet.[/quote]

TJ foresaw America as being an agrarian society, but I'm sure he'd get on the internets bandwagon. However Hamilton would have been promoting the internets from day one.

SocSec management is a joke. If it's such a well run program, where's all the money?

I could have invested my SocSec money in T-Bills and gotten a much better return.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor']
I believe what I said still stands. The founding fathers would not have advocated income tax in their time (I would argue that an efficient governement would not need to collect it even in ours). It's somewhat disengenous to say that the founding fathers didn't mean for the constitiution to do benefitial things like grant black rights. Sure, there were certain populist statutues in the document, but I would argue that many of the most important figures including Washington and Jefferson disagreed with the practice of slavery but were pragmatic enough to understand that an outright ban would have never been approved.

However I would say that most were opposed to a government that decides how the people will spend even a portion of their "hard earned". Take taxes to protect me, promote education, provide charity for the less fortunate (IE the handicapped, mentally challenged, and mentally ill), etc but don't force a fully functioning adult to place his/her money into the government's poorly run retirement plan.[/quote]

Camoor, you do realize jefferson and washington owned slaves, don't you? That's the problem when we idealize people, we try to make them acceptable in modern society when they actually would be condemned for many of the things they did. They were not the type of slave owners who believed slavery was 100% correct, they had problems with it and made some attempts to moderate it (such as trying to make it easier to free slaves), but in the end they were still racists who tolerated, and practiced, slavery. Their ideas would not be acceptable in modern mainstream society, and no modern political party would want anything to do with them if they existed, with their same ideas, today.[/quote]

Well, Washington freed all of his slaves upon his death and Jefferson, well he was more like Deniro then any of his contemporaries.[/quote]

But if he so opposed it, why did he have any to free in the first place?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor']
I believe what I said still stands. The founding fathers would not have advocated income tax in their time (I would argue that an efficient governement would not need to collect it even in ours). It's somewhat disengenous to say that the founding fathers didn't mean for the constitiution to do benefitial things like grant black rights. Sure, there were certain populist statutues in the document, but I would argue that many of the most important figures including Washington and Jefferson disagreed with the practice of slavery but were pragmatic enough to understand that an outright ban would have never been approved.

However I would say that most were opposed to a government that decides how the people will spend even a portion of their "hard earned". Take taxes to protect me, promote education, provide charity for the less fortunate (IE the handicapped, mentally challenged, and mentally ill), etc but don't force a fully functioning adult to place his/her money into the government's poorly run retirement plan.[/quote]

Camoor, you do realize jefferson and washington owned slaves, don't you? That's the problem when we idealize people, we try to make them acceptable in modern society when they actually would be condemned for many of the things they did. They were not the type of slave owners who believed slavery was 100% correct, they had problems with it and made some attempts to moderate it (such as trying to make it easier to free slaves), but in the end they were still racists who tolerated, and practiced, slavery. Their ideas would not be acceptable in modern mainstream society, and no modern political party would want anything to do with them if they existed, with their same ideas, today.[/quote]

Well, Washington freed all of his slaves upon his death and Jefferson, well he was more like Deniro then any of his contemporaries.[/quote]

But if he so opposed it, why did he have any to free in the first place?[/quote]

Well he was the son of a nobleman, and they came from his father.

Besides, if the choice is between keeping a family together and well-fed or splitting them up and sending them to other people who will treat them like property and abuse them, well, I know which option I would choose.
 
[quote name='camoor']

SocSec management is a joke. If it's such a well run program, where's all the money?

.[/quote]


It is in treasury bonds. The "money" was taken about by the government to pay other programs.

The federal government has been borrowing from social security since 1983. Interest-bearing IOUs are building up in the trust fund that are backed by the full faith and credit of the government. In fact, both parties have spent more than $600 billion in Social Security surpluses on other government programs.

and of course, the money also pay benefits to current retirees.


as for Slavery that was bad example on my part. I think some of the Founding Father did see the constitution as a means to end slavery. Although they didn't mention it and even made the famous 3/5 of a man compromise. BUT ending slavery and granting black full rights are not exactly the same thing.
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='camoor']

SocSec management is a joke. If it's such a well run program, where's all the money?[/quote]


It is in treasury bonds. The "money" was taken about by the government to pay other programs.

The federal government has been borrowing from social security since 1983. Interest-bearing IOUs are building up in the trust fund that are backed by the full faith and credit of the government. In fact, both parties have spent more than $600 billion in Social Security surpluses on other government programs.

and of course, the money also pay benefits to current retirees.
[/quote]

:nottalking:

The only thing that money should be used for is to "pay benefits to current retirees", because it is our money, not the governments.

This reminds me of "Dumb and Dumber" when the two idiots find a case full of money and when they give it back it's full of hand-written IOUs.

Ooooooh-> 600,000,000,000 dollars. That's a keeper!
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='camoor']

Well he was the son of a nobleman, and they came from his father.

Besides, if the choice is between keeping a family together and well-fed or splitting them up and sending them to other people who will treat them like property and abuse them, well, I know which option I would choose.[/quote]

He could free them, or at least not use them as slaves. Either way, I think you're letting their heroic image get in the way of reality. You are trying to keep your heroes pure, as if they were divine, devoid of the crimes and prejudices of their time. These men where the "good" slave owners, the ones who wanted to reform it, to control it. But regardless, they were slave owners, they were racists, and there seems to be little evidence to the contrary.

There are few people in history where, if you dissect every part of their life and beliefs, are tolerable to modern society.

Here's an interesting article on washington taking from mountvernon.org (probably a little more forgiving than many other sites) that shows his conflicted nature. Somewhat opposed to it as he aged, but at the same time he purchased slaves himself and made them work sun up to sun down, six days a week.

George Washington was born into a world in which slavery was accepted. He became a slave owner when his father died in 1743. At the age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves and 500 acres of land. When he began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate.

The skilled and manual labor needed to run Mount Vernon was largely provided by slaves. Many of the working slaves were trained in crafts such as milling, coopering, blacksmithing, carpentry,and shoemaking. The others worked as house servants, boatmen, coachmen or field hands. Some female slaves were also taught skills, particularly spinning, weaving and sewing, while others worked as house servants or in the laundry, the dairy, or the kitchen. Many female slaves also worked in the fields. Almost three-quarters of the 184 working slaves at Mount Vernon worked in the fields, and of those, about 60% were women.

The workday for slaves was from sun-up to sun-down, six days a week. Sunday was a day of rest.

Although George Washington was born into a world where slavery was accepted, his attitude toward slavery changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, he seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation.

As President, Washington did not lead a public fight against slavery, however, because he believed it would tear the new nation apart. Abolition had many opponents, especially in the South. Washington seems to have feared that if he took such a public stand, the southern states would withdraw from the Union (something they would do seventy years later, leading to the Civil War). He had worked too hard to build the country to risk tearing it apart.

Privately, however, Washington could -- and did -- lead by example. In his will, he arranged for all of the slaves he owned to be freed after the death of his wife, Martha. He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, support and training for all of the children until they came of age, and continuing support for the elderly.
Click to expand...

link

Here's another article, posted by the university of virginia, showing that washington did not release slaves upon his death, and under half were supposed to be released after his wifes death.

The list details the adult and child slaves on each of the Mount Vernon farms, usually giving ages, occupations, and other pertinent information. [Note: the list has been divided into seven parts for on-line distribution.] Washington's list of 317 slaves, printed immediately below, includes the names of 124 who belonged to him outright and were to be freed when Martha Washington died, 153 who were Martha Washington's dower slaves and at her death would go to the Custis heir-at-law, her grandson George Washington Parke Custis, and forty others leased by GW from his neighbor Penelope Manley French. Of the 277 slaves belonging to Washington in his own right or by marriage, 179 were 12 years old or older, eighteen of whom were "Passed labor." The remaining ninety-eight were children under the age of 12. Of those twelve years old and over, ninety-five were females and eighty-four were males. Shortly after Washington's death, Bushrod Washington recommended to Martha Washington that she get "clear of her negroes" at Mount Vernon. According to Eugene Prussing, she "was made unhappy by the talk in the [slave] quarters of the good time coming to the ones to be freed as soon as she died." He reported that "many did not wait for the event" but took off at once. In any case, all the slaves that Washington owned outright were freed after Martha's death, and the accounts of the executors of Washington's will show an expenditure by 1833 of more than $10,000 to the pensioned former slaves who remained at Mount Vernon or lived nearby (Bushrod Washington to Martha Washington, Fields, Papers of Martha Washington, 328-31; Prussing, Estate of George Washington, 158-60).

The slaves Washington owned in his own right came from several sources. He was left eleven slaves by his father's will; a portion of his half-brother Lawrence Washington's slaves, about a dozen in all, were willed to him after the death of Lawrence's infant daughter and his widow; and Washington purchased from time to time slaves for himself, mostly before the Revolution.
Click to expand...

link
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='usickenme'][quote name='camoor']


In America you deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see anything in there about the government making sure that you're taken care of in your old age (In elementary school they told us the story of the grasshopper and the ant, the lazy grasshopper doesn't do so well in the winter).

[/quote]

that's because your looking at the wrong document..

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

some folks say it is right there.[/quote]

Promote is not the same as mandate or provide. "Promote the general welfare" generally is taken to mean provide for things that can only realistically be done by all of us together, such as build roads and bridges, assign wireless frequencies, regulate things when necessary, etc.[/quote]

the problem is that is one interpretation. This has always been up for debate. It is only "taken to mean provide" by folks who want to minimize federal power.[/quote]

Somehow I doubt many agree with your communist interpretation, that the government should provide means for everyone.
 
The genious in the founding fathers was a recognition that certain factors of society would change in its future acceptance, and that the constitution would need a method of changing it. It is however, first and foremost, declared a republic, and not a social republic. Where the "general welfare" may be vague, certain articles are very clear on the rights of the individual, including that of freedom.

Any system where the contributors are given no choice of contribution and the state controls the cash flow is considered socialist. And I hate to say it, but socialism is flawed. It does not work.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='camoor']

Now I don't like seeing people starve and there should be some provision that keeps the most unfortunate of old people (just like all people) above the poverty line if they want it. [/quote]


That provision is called social security.[/quote]

Actually in my world it's called charity.

Social security is mandatory retirement insurance.[/quote]

WOW....I never knew you were such an idiot Camoor. Are you really young (early 20s) or just really that uneducated about the matter? Or worse? Are you very wealthy or come from a wealthy family?
 
[quote name='defender'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='camoor']

Now I don't like seeing people starve and there should be some provision that keeps the most unfortunate of old people (just like all people) above the poverty line if they want it. [/quote]


That provision is called social security.[/quote]

Actually in my world it's called charity.

Social security is mandatory retirement insurance.[/quote]

WOW....I never knew you were such an idiot Camoor. Are you really young (early 20s) or just really that uneducated about the matter? Or worse? Are you very wealthy or come from a wealthy family?[/quote]

I've known he is an idiot for a while now. You should check out the teacher thread. :rofl:
 
[quote name='defender'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='camoor']

Now I don't like seeing people starve and there should be some provision that keeps the most unfortunate of old people (just like all people) above the poverty line if they want it. [/quote]


That provision is called social security.[/quote]

Actually in my world it's called charity.

Social security is mandatory retirement insurance.[/quote]

WOW....I never knew you were such an idiot Camoor. Are you really young (early 20s) or just really that uneducated about the matter? Or worse? Are you very wealthy or come from a wealthy family?[/quote]

Don't be afraid. Try to refute my comment.

Oh - I forgot - it's much easier to make baseless claims and lame insults about who you think I am.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top