Young people, should this be your focus?

Question

40% of the U.S. budget is spent on retired people - and the Baby Boomers haven't even retired yet. It now takes the social security taxes of three working people to pay for one retiree's benefits. And people are living longer...and longer...

Yet young peole helped lead the charge to kill social security reform. Without drastic change, your tax rate could be 60% or more by the time you're 30 years old and trying to raise a family.

I'm not advocating any particular stance. I'd just like to know if this scares you, if you think it's a problem, and how this can be solved.

Quickly learning everyone under 40 knows it's a big problem. Too bad your government only cares what AARP thinks.

Answer 1

Social Security tax and benefit reform are essential to restore faith and financial viability to the broken system



Changing the law to mandate investing the Trust Funds into real assets in the private sector is essential to AVOID unsustainable perpetual debt and certain dire consequences. The misappropriation of Social Security Income Taxes by politicians in both parties must be stopped. All policies that drive this country further into unsustainable perpetual debt must be changed. In previous articles, it has been explained how Social Security has evolved from an equity based retirement safety net for low to middle income workers to a welfare program that is neither equitable or fair; a program that rewards the wealthy at the expense of lower income employees. The tax and welfare laws now in place are driving this country into BANKRUPTCY. That is a FACT.




Is Social Security Constitutional? YOU DECIDE!


From the outset, the constitutional basis of the Social Security Act of 1935 was uncertain. The basic problem is that under the "reserve clause" of the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States or the people. When the federal government seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in the Constitution to justify its action.



Title II of the Act captioned: "Federal Old-Age Benefits." provides two types of benefits, first, monthly pensions, and second, lump sum payments. There is no explicit language in the U.S. Constitution, as Amended, that empowers the federal government to provide direct welfare payments to citizens. The Roosevelt Administration with Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress made a determination that Constitutional authority did exist under the tax clause. Presented here are the facts. You decide what they mean! (I have hi-lighted certain words to facilitate easier understanding.)



THE U.S. Constitution "(extracts)

QUOTE: (PREAMBLE) "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."



(tax clause) Article. I. Section. 8. Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; UNQUOTE



A majority in Congress and the Roosevelt Administration chose to believe the words in the tax-clause "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;" were a sufficient basis for the federal government to provide direct benefits to retired workers qualified under the Act. Words in the (PREAMBLE) made a conscious distinction between the words provide, and promote which certainly raises questions with regard to Constitutional intent that were ignored by the democrats. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html



The omission or contradiction in the placement of the word "Promote" in the Preamble of the Constitution or its inadvertent omission in the "Tax Clause" in the constitution is a legal issue that should have been resolved before enactment of the Social Security Act of 1935. The Congress and Roosevelt's interpretation that the authority to provide federal welfare relied on the "tax clause" is questionable. The absence of legal arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the "direct benefits" issue leaves open to challenge the Constitutionality of Social Security Act of 1935 and today?s welfare state.



A supporting argument that the interpretation was wrong is supported by the fact that other less important issues were singled out and placed in separate clauses by Framers of the Constitution. If they wanted the Federal Government to provide direct welfare to US citizens they would have stated it clearly and unambiguously. They would have inserted a direct "Welfare Clause" in the document that might read: "The federal government will provide welfare to its citizens." Absence of any such statement lends strong credence to the suggestion that "Direct Federal Welfare" was not included, because they did not want it there. Had they desired a "Direct Welfare" clause they most certainly would not have hidden that intent in the tax clause. Makes no sense. Authors of the Constitution were intelligent, educated, experienced men with time to think about getting it right. It is easier to believe framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing, rather than Roosevelt's finding new meaning of intentions that cannot be found in the Document.



Absence of the word "promote" in the tax clause may also be explained by one of two alternatives. Since the word was already in the Preamble drafters of the document did not repeat the word because it could be assumed its repetition to be redundant and it was omitted on purpose. The only other explanation is that it was administrative error.



Regardless of interpretation, a full reading of the U.S. Constitution will result in NO ONE finding of a Constitutional authority for the Tax & Welfare mess that exists today. Among thousands of visits to this website, not one comment has been received to dispute these findings.



Contrarily, no less a legal scholar than Judge Robert Bork (Reagan nominee to the US Supreme Court) appearing before the National Press Club on September 6, 2005 and aired on C-Span on September 12, 2005 stated emphatically that "Social Security is Not Constitutional".



"Injustice Under Law Equals Social Insecurity"

---- John Koraska February 4, 2005



Politicians' propensity to treat your hard-earned Tax Dollars like Toilet Paper must be stopped. The politicians are jeopardizing the good credit of the United States. Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing; what's next? "US DOLLAR CRASHES!", "U.S. DEFAULTS ON NATIONAL DEBT". This must be avoided, whatever it takes... Lacking a successful political response, the only solution is to join forces by exercising rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The First Amendment was written because citizens insisted on a guarantee of their basic freedoms.



The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."



The U.S. Supreme Court is co-equal to the Executive and Legislative arms of government. Since politicians elected by the People to represent our interests are not listening, the only recourse to not being heard and obeyed is through the courts. The Constitution is the only protection standing between the People and oppression. The right of workers to retain just compensation for their toil must be defended, whatever the cost.



Lawsuits filed in State and Federal Courts across the country, I can almost guarantee will get the attention of the politicians. The two major political parties will be forced to focus on real solutions to this mess instead of applying band-aids when a tourniquet is clearly needed to stop the hemorrhage of Tax Dollars and an explosion of Unsustainable Debt.



"Social Security Reform OR Perpetual Debt? Which do you choose?"



TELL YOUR CONGRESSMAN --- THEN TELL THE JUDGE!

Answer 2

Yes it's disturbing ... but I'm not the one who should be scared; its the people who're demanding social services, but refusing to pay for them who should be scared.

The AARP is like a college student with a credit card. They just keep charging stuff like retirement, health care, 911 emergency ... and we (under 50) are only 1/3 of the pay force. In economics, this is called an "inverted pyramid". Reality is that an inverted pyramid will tumble over and crash. The poor old people who've been promised these social services will suffer ... I will suffer only a bit because I'm individually building my nest for retirement and health care. So, if the old people want money and there is none to produce well, the old people suffer more than I who can provide for myself.

However, I have always been taught to "Respect my elders", sadly, with the society they built, I will not be able to help the elders outside of my immediate family .

How can it be solved? Where's the money? The money is in savings and retirement accounts of the people who control the AARP. Currently Estate's are basically not taxed ... when the sliding scales comes through we should tax the "Estates" more so that the old people who have the money pay for the social services they want.

Answer 3

Am i a young people (just turned 30)-my thoughts on social security. The money you receive from social security doesnt pay you nearly enough to live off of. If I had my choice I would invest in a mutual fund instead of SS. I could give a rats but about social security. Its all about the baby boomers anyway. They are going to kill us in medical costs when they get old. Us youngins would benifit more if the goveernmant steered clear of as many gov't programs as much as posible...such as medicare, social sec., etc...they werent made for us and they will never benefit us. We are much better off left to our own devices but that will never be the case

Answer 4

I recently told my parents to spend it all. Enjoy life and don't worry about leaving any inheritance to my sibling or I. I would feel like a failure if i needed my parents money to survive when i get old. The small rule applies to Social Security if i need it i consider my self a looser. I am 34 and will retire when i am 50. I don't need any government money. And i would vote to end Social security and have the Gov. stop taking it out of my income.

Answer 5

WE can start by not giving wetbacks social security benefits just because they somehow got legal after mooching off welfare for god knows how many years and then workee some stupid job for a couple of years. I am a social worker in NJ and you have no idea how many illegals are able to receive housing vouchers, food stamps, Medicaid, etc only to find a job for a short amount of time and then be able to get Social Security. I personally know lots of old people who get to live in senior citizen projects, pay 200 dollars rent( The cost of living in NJ is one of the highest in the nation!!!) and get ss. its no fair to every one else, mostly the legal immigrants who look bad along with the moochers.

Answer 6

Young ppl need to realize that those dollars were already put into social security by those elderly ppl. They deserve their money.

What young ppl need to do is start raising cane for the government to put back the money into so. sec. that they robbed.

Answer 7

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It should be privatized.

Answer 8

Yeah it scares me.
Yes I think this is a problem.
And i have no clue how to fix it.