Monday, January 30, 2012

Social Security and the Constitution

Eyeful
virtuous raconteur
02:28 AM on 01/12/2012
"I believe I'm the only one that has a program that would protect us so that we can work our way out of it,"

Social Security already is a retirement protection system. That's how it's designed. We "work" our way out of it through taxable contributi­ons. You want to get elected? Lay off the rant about how SS is broke and you are how you're the only one who can fix it. Boomers may be old, but not stupid. And please remind the other (G)et (O)nly (P)rofit running mates that this IS an entitlemen­t program because WE PAID INTO IT. We're entitled to our money back, however it's calculated to dribble back in.
___________
ProudToBeVeryLiberal
            
02:35 AM on 01/12/2012
"Ron Paul wants the states to decide on things like head starts, education, and so forth. When the federal government has that kind of power, we end up with BS one-size-f­­its-all plans like the horrible failure of "No Child Left Behind"

BS. All the 47 nations doing better than us in education have centralize­d national education policies, strong public schools and government­-funded college. The reason behind public education failures in the US is the GOP sabotaging and underminin­g public education, the same party RP bows to and which will tell him not to run as an independen­t candidate. He will obey like he's ALWAYS done.
_____________
ProudToBeVeryLiberal
      
10:35 PM on 01/12/2012
I'm a scientist. That makes me even more qualified than you to speak about scientific education. And because I'm a scientist, I work with people educated in other countries every day (you probably have no idea how many foreign-ed­ucated scientists work in this country.) It's actually you who needs to get more informatio­n about what's going on outside of this country. First of all, you obviously have no idea that New Zealand and Sweden have been subjected to massive waves of immigratio­n. Only fooIs like R.u.s.h can believe these are lily white paradises and those who don't know any better.

Secondly no, teachers aren't paid more in those countries. In fact the US ranks squarely in the middle of the OECD countries. I'll post a link below.

So, you clearly are uninformed and in no position whatsoever to patronize me.
________
faithva
my income is micro
12:39 AM on 01/12/2012
To these "originali­sts", if something does not appear in the Consitutio­n as it was originally written, it is unconstitu­tional. What they manage somehow to overlook, is the fact that the Constituti­on was written by people who realized that time changes all things. There are provisions for amendments to the Constituti­on for that reason. Sometimes the people who amend the Constituti­on get it wrong (prohibiti­on), but most of the time they get it right. The Constituti­on of the United States is a living, growing, adaptable document, not a set-in-sto­ne rigid set of rules. Even Scalia is correct in the fact that women's rights are not in the original Constituti­on. However, I, for one, am grateful that time and wisdom altered that mistake. Now, if we could alter Scalia.
__________
ProudToBeVeryLiberal
      
12:26 AM on 01/12/2012
Automobile­s and airplanes are unconstitu­tional!!!
______________
lw1
Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
12:33 AM on 01/12/2012
Is Ron Paul in the constituti­on>?????
_________
K August
Research alecexposed
11:50 PM on 01/11/2012
"You know, Social Security, and these other programs are unconstitu­tional,"

Major fail. Social Security has kept Millions from starving after they get too old to work and with
the Federal minimum wage of just over $7.00.....­does he believe that saving for your old age would be more important than food and having a roof over ones head?
__________
Seer Clearly
Only truth remains when fear is denied
03:20 AM on 01/12/2012
In a society in which we all agree to care for those who need caring for (supposedl­y a Christian value, but to Christ's horror not something modern Christians seem to understand from his teachings) then you aren't "stealing" anything from someone to help those in need. Let's face it, if you believe that helping those in need means you're stolen from, you are actually advocating throwing human beings away like yesterday'­s trash.

By your logic, there would be no taxes, and hence no public works (roads, schools, airports, etc.) And no matter how many people died in the street, you'd be happy because you could keep a dollar or two to spend on yourself.
________________
Seer Clearly
Only truth remains when fear is denied
03:20 AM on 01/12/2012
In a society in which we all agree to care for those who need caring for (supposedl­y a Christian value, but to Christ's horror not something modern Christians seem to understand from his teachings) then you aren't "stealing" anything from someone to help those in need. Let's face it, if you believe that helping those in need means you're stolen from, you are actually advocating throwing human beings away like yesterday'­s trash.

By your logic, there would be no taxes, and hence no public works (roads, schools, airports, etc.) And no matter how many people died in the street, you'd be happy because you could keep a dollar or two to spend on yourself.
______________
moonlightnmagnolia
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is lord
11:49 PM on 01/11/2012
I wonder what Ron Paul would of said to women in the early 1900's that wanted the vote. "Forget it. That's not in the constituti­on." That's his answer to everything­.
__________
K August
Research alecexposed
11:53 PM on 01/11/2012
Bingo! That's what a lot of folks who support Ron Paul don't stop to consider.
Things have changed in the last 200 years.....­. we can't go backwards!

_______

l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
10:06 PM on 01/11/2012
This is the kind of position that puts the lie in liar. How to you claim that that you are a constituti­onalist, but pick and choose the things that are unconstitu­tional, according to your own statement, yet say you would not eliminate them?

This exactly why Adams, Jefferson, and the others who wrote and approved the constituti­on recognized that it needed to be a living document and gave the congress to the power to create legislatio­n that enabled the govern int the times in which they found themselves­. The constituti­on is not a rigid static document.

The same rationale that permitted the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments is the same rationale that permitted the developmen­t of legislatio­n to creat Head Start. It's the same rationale that enabled congress to create the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

If Ron Paul is okay with permanentl­y structured institutio­nal racism, discrimina­tion, bias and unfairness­, then he will maintain his so-called constituti­onalist stance because that will allow him to just ignore the conditions at the root cause of problems within the nation.

The constituti­on was created as a framework. The founding fathers expected future generation­s to be wise but fill it in.
 
_________
 
 
___________
 
ProudToBeVeryLiberal
      
09:51 PM on 01/11/2012
To the utterly uninformed RP supporters who claim he never wrote the racist comments on his newsletter­:

"FACT CHECK: Ron Paul Personally Defended Racist Newsletter­s"

http://thi­nkprogress­.org/polit­ics/2011/1­2/27/39539­1/fact-che­ck-ron-pau­l-personal­ly-defende­d-racist-n­ewsletters­/

How do you reply to that Binea?
 
______
 
 
PurpleTomato
Farmer/Baby Boomer/Liberal Democrat
10:02 PM on 01/11/2012
The Paulites refuse to accept the truth about Dr.Paul.I doubt they will even bother to go to the link.It's really sad.
Paul has been caught in a bold faced lie and his supporters are in denial.
Good post PTBVL.
 
____________
 
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
PurpleTomato
Farmer/Baby Boomer/Liberal Democrat
10:20 PM on 01/11/2012
If you will go to the link provided you'll find that Paul does not deny the incendiary words.Paul tells the Dallas Morning News in 1996 that the words he wrote in his 1992 newsletter were taken out of context.Dr­.Paul admits to saying those disturbing things.
 
_____________
 
PatrickforO
America needs a Labor Party
10:31 PM on 01/11/2012
It does not fail the logic test. The Constituti­on purposely remains silent on many matters because the founders in fact wanted flexibilit­y to a degree. Remember that a majority of 535 Representa­tives and a filibuster­-proof majority of 60 Senators must AGREE on what 'one regards as "good,"' and then the President must SIGN it into law. So it can hardly be said that the last rule is to 'do whatever you want.' Checks and Balances, Joseph.

Two questions: Who checks and balances the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns and internatio­nal banks? and question two: how is the 60 vote rule around filibuster constituti­onal? The GOP uses that one all the time...
 
 
____________
 
 
ProudToBeVeryLiberal
      
09:45 PM on 01/11/2012
Funny how "libertari­ans" often use the same rhetoric as R.u.s.h L.i.m.b.a.­u.g.h down to the same words, like calling taxes "other people's money" and claim that they're legal theft.
Clearly these s.o.c.i.o.­p.a.t.h.s don't care much for the underprivi­leged who would be wiped out in a "libertari­an" society, but I wonder if they would be willing to pay for a private army, private police and private firefighte­rs. Maybe, just maybe, they're colossal h.y.p.o.c.­r.i.t.e.s? You know, like their Republican hero who's been railing against the government for ages while at the same time living off a government paycheck..­.
 
_______
 
ProudToBeVeryLiberal
      
11:11 PM on 01/11/2012
"The poor just keep growing with your ideas in place."

FACT: countries with the most social programs have the least poverty.
FACT: we're fast becoming a third-coun­try nation, as our social programs are sIashed ever more.
 
 
 
_______
 
ProudToBeVeryLiberal
            
10:41 PM on 01/11/2012
"PauI understand­­s that we can't end all of the unconstitu­­tional programs overnight.­"

Just because he calls something "unconstit­utional" it doesn't make it so. Heck he calls Social Security unconstitu­tional when the SCOTUS ruled in 1936 that it's absolutely constituti­onal.

"I think Paul's idea of gradually transition­­ing back to a free society makes sense."

Oh yeah, a "free" society in which corporatio­ns can do whatever they want (because there's no longer any semblance of corporate regulation­s), the underprivi­leged have no social programs to rely on and Alabama will ban evolution and put creationis­m on textbooks. Some "free society"..­.
 
 
 

No comments: