Our political divide, Part 1

Our political divide is much more fundamental, I am left to believe, than many fully appreciate. I want to explore these divides one at a time. In this thread, I want to explore the divide between those who disagree on how our federal government should prioritize its first two responsibilities.

About half of our nation is left to believe that our federal government's first responsibility is to promote the general welfare of its citizens; and that in the fulfillment of its first responsibility, government may infringe upon individual life, liberty or private property.

About half of our nation is left to believe that our federal government's first responsibility is to protect and defend individual life, liberty and private property; and that in fulfillment of its first responsibility government may infringe upon the general welfare.

One of the things that makes the USA exceptional from every other Country is that we are constituted to prioritize individual life, liberty and private property over the general welfare. However, about half of our nation does not agree with those priorities. Why do you agree or disagree with our constituted priorities?

 

There's another branch, those of us who believe the federal government should only do those things specifically and strictly enumerated in the Constitution and leave everything else to the states and local governments.

The reasons for this are simple, larger pools of money and influence that are more centralized and remote from the governed are more corruptible. Smaller influence and pools of money that are managed locally by people who live among the governed are FAR less corruptible. Washington is "one stop shopping" for crooks and cronies seeking to wet their beaks in the U.S. tax revenue illegitimately. Imagine if all the thieving creeps had to go door-to-door among 50 states and innumerable locales.

 

Trump promotes neither of those things..So, the people who voted for him are the cause of their own divide.

 

A nonsensical statement having little to do with the topic of the thread and even less to do with the current reality.

 

Right back at ya.

 

The bureaucracy never had a year like 2019 before in their entire existance.The top 1% added 25% or $1.2 TRILLION to their wealth in a single year.Meanwhile 50% of the nations single retirees are struggling to make ends meet and 23% of those where there are two S.S. recipients living together are struggling to exist.The RICH ARE DEFINITELY benefitting at everyone else's expense.

 

What about the ideas? Can you separate the messages from the messengers? What do YOU think?

 

What you propose is that the federal government should never violate individual life, liberty or private property in its attempts to promote the general welfare. The question then becomes whether or not we will ever get our leviathan back into its constitutional box?

 

Depends on the message.
Ill take it as a case by case basis. For instance If you send Trump to deliver any sort of message, you get what you get.

 

I don't dispute your numbers and the why of those numbers is a good topic, but how does it relate to the political divide in the U.S.?

 

Nothing has changed for SS beneficiaries. CPI increases have been pretty modest while IRA's and 401(k)'s are booming. Retiree's are living in the world Democrats built for them. By going to war against Bush's recommendation to privatize SS, the maximum benefit is around $2,800 / month. The max an S&P index fund would yield in the same time would be $10,000 / month. Do the math and find an immediate life annuity.

SS benefit is a 35 year career issue. In 3 years with Pelosi on his back 24/7, Trump has done everything possible: Modest inflation and high returns on our retirement plans.

 

As is typical of those on the right side of the political spectrum, you are attempting to prescribe a simplistic explanation to a far more complicated issue.....and along the way, showing your own political bias.

Any and all political issues are the constant struggle between individual and society's needs. No one party has a stranglehold on this as they both have favored one over the other for any given topic throughout all of recorded history.

 

Actually the max it would yield is when people would have had no choice but to draw from it or lose X (children, home, a loved one to a disease, etc)
Thanx to SS, even after such tragedies, one can still obtain the $2,800 a month. If one doesent experiance such things..now they have both, the S&P, and SS.

 

I disagree with your perspective. The difficult challenge we’ve undertaken is the balancing act of promoting the general welfare and protecting the individual. The factions you described are the inherent push and pull of the process. Neither faction is correct.

 

Let me type more slowly. Every paycheck the government take 12.4% from either the self-employed or half from each the employee+employer. They use that money, paying you at the around the rate of a T-Bill, say 1.5%. At the end of 35 years, or using your best 35 years, at the retirement age, they pay out a maximum of $2800. 1.5% is less than the Fed's target inflation rate.

If instead, they let you opt to invest your 12.4% in an S&P index fund, the principle could be annuitized at the end of 35 years to pay out $10,000 / month for life guaranteed. You could still have your IRA and 401(k), but since you are making good money on SS, they don't have you half broke where they want you.

 

Your "If instead" exist in some type of pocket universe you made up out of thin air that doesent take far too many variables into effect.

Why dont you just make more an do both?

 

The coolest part of the above... the rich weren't the only ones who added to their wealth - dumbass middleclass me added approximately 25% to my wealth last year too!

 

I could do both, but the Government took 12.4% for 35 years and is paying me crap because Democrats have worked full time to prevent people from prospering.

 

We won't ever get it back in the box fully as long as there is a universal voting franchise that allows people who live off tax revenues in specific jurisdictions to vote in those jurisdictions, but I took this as a theory thread since it was broad and general as opposed to addressed to a specific policy.

The general welfare of the nation and NOT individual citizens is the job of the federal government. This includes things like defense, borders, treaties, legitimate interstate commerce, national infrastructure, national lands, and the civil rights of the 14th Amendment. The general welfare that the federal government protects is against mostly foreign powers and also specific states' power. That's really all that is Constitutionally legitimate in terms of federal functions. A vast majority of the federal government, especially the Executive Branch, is illegitimate, and is a consequence of progressive Democrat control of most of the branches of government for the meat of the 20th century. Calling it "welfare," "medicare," or "affordable care" doesn't make it Constitutionally legitimate, just more progressive, quasi-socialist DUNG.

The general welfare of state citizens, including most environmental issues and social programs is legitimately the job of the states. The Framers never intended us to have an overbearing, central nanny state that takes ~20% of working people's LIVES at all federal levels in taxes.

 

And neither should it degrade the general welfare on the pretext of defending individual liberty. Right?

 

BS. All of it. Are the rich gettng richer of course in any functioning economy the rich get richer. But they aren't doing it at anyone else's expense, least of all seniors. They do it by creating more wealth and they do that by spending money. Always remember that money isn't wealth. It is merely a convenient yard stick by which wealth can be measured.

 

Well, that just isnt true at all.
Want I should pull some information of just how health insurance companies, and big pharma scam not only seniors, but this nation as a whole? The food industry, tobacco, energy, etc?

 

Interesting..Iv prospered directly thanx to Obama fixing the economy.

 

And please note most of the cost they bear and charge for are a function of Government rules and regulations. Seniors health care cost are mostly covered by the federal government, which grossly underpays all of them because it is the government and can get away with it. By the Rich and corporations aren't the same entities.
By the way the overwhelming majority of gross corporate earnings year in and year out go to salaries and employee benefits.

 

Yea, that's what they sell you..But most of the time it isnt true. Yes they have staff, but guess what their incentive is..not to pay out.
Without those "rules and regulations" what incentive is there to payout to someone who is gonna kick the bucket?
What incentive was there for roundup to halt what they were doing?
What incentive was there to not shift blame to someone else for flammable water?
etc, etc.

If seniors are getting grossly underpaid, imagine what they would have without SS? And paying into SS never halted anyone who really wanted to from saving up, so that excuse can go right back where you found it.