Social Security is on the brink of demise--sadly

This one is.

 

"Stealing"? Taxation is completely legal. There is no theft involved.

 

I asked about Trump, and you make it personal. SS is a tax, it is not "stealing". Please answer the question.

 

Is it? Care to show me where in the Constitution SS is even authorized as an allowable government function? Much less paid for the way it is? (Hint: It's not. But it would probably do you good to reread the Constitution anyway.)

 

This insurance is based on income up to the cap. That cap should be moved to $1 million.

 

First, you show me where in the Constitution Equifax is authorized as an allowable business. How about cell phones? How about farting? Where are they allowed?

Your objection is equally ridiculous. And your implication that I don't know the Constitution is offensive.

 

Trump? You didn't say the first thing about him, nor is he really relevant aside from his role as POTUS with regards to changing and approving legislation.

I said it was immoral, unethical, and unfair to make a person pay an uncapped "premium" for insurance that has a capped payout. If you wish to dispute that, by all means, please do so.

 

Then the return should also be based on that amount.

 

Neither businesses, nor cell phones, nor farts need be authorized by the Constitution to be legal. The Constitution outlines what the Government is allowed to do. If it ain't listed, they ain't allowed to do it.

 

"Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"

 

What should we base taxation for the funding of unpopular war on?

 

The libertarian philosophy on taxation and the Constitution is meaningless and should not and will not debated. I advise all on the far right and with libertarian leanings to reread the Constitution.

 

Why? Be specific!

 

I certainly did ask. The argument against the SS program is immoral, unethical, and unfair. All who don't like it, better get over it, because it won't change.

 

I'm glad you're not making the rules.

 

That does not say "The Congress shall have Power To create pensions". Try again.

 

YOU try again. I said "taxation is completely legal." YOU replied "it is?"?

Maybe you need to read, write, and communicate more carefully.

 

Taxation is constitutional. End of story.

 

Yeah, this is one of the reasons I'm not a Republican. I'm an Independent.

I think of myself as a conservative, but my own definition of the term. I believe that taking care of our parents and our grandparents is a not a liberal or conservative concept, but more of a sacred trust on all of us.

I do not support these Republican-supported ideas to raise the retirement age. I call these "Work until you die" plans. These rich, pampered, lifetime politicians seem to have no idea what it is like to give all you've got at a real job your whole life up into your 60s. By the time you're 65, your mind and your body are tired. They may still be pretty good, but the decline of old age is just around the corner. People deserve to retire at 65 and to be able to enjoy some good years before the inevitable. So I favor fully funding SS with a "full retirement" at 65. It's utterly affordable. It's just a matter of raising those caps and just doing it.

 

Proposals to raise the retirement age are based on an increasing life expectancy. People are living longer. But that does not mean people are healthier longer and therefore able to work longer. In fact, health in the U.S. is on the decline. We are not really doing so well. But we are able to keep sick, impaired, debilitated people living longer.

 

Off topic, but I couldn't resist ...

All wars, whether popular or unpopular, should be financed by a "war surcharge" added to our income taxes.

It is morally indefensible for us to send our young people into battle, asking them to sacrifice everything if necessary, if we at home are unwilling to sacrifice something too.

 

Bullshit.

Both AlbatrossParties have made the assertion, numerous times.

 

Democrats too? Can you document/confirm that?

 

No one can.

 

You're completely wrong and have zero understanding of accounting. To say that Bush "stole" from SS, and other Presidents did not, implies that only Republicans create strong job markets, which I would agree with.

Default is the inability to pay your debts, and in regards to the Federal government of the United States treason. By not cutting spending, Obama was pushing the US to default, as interest on the national debt is consuming an alarming amount of Federal revenue, 22% of every tax dollar paid last time I checked.

Also, my ROI has nothing to do with luck. Patience and the ability to read a financial statement, the same as it ever was.

Then the rich should receive substantially larger SS checks. As the program is based on contributions, wealthier, healthier, longer living Americans should receive large benefit payments while the poor continue to get peanuts.

Because we believe international law is worth enforcing. I know liberals tend to think that genocide and ethnic cleansing is cool, but the Geneva Convention says otherwise.