Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not needed if one ignores the Constitution.
Can you find it in the enumerated powers?
FDR found it, the Democratic party found it, the Supreme Court found it, and you're having trouble? So, anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article, it's just after the preamble. Let me know when that's found and we'll move on.
None of what you posted is true.
I've always believed that a post filled with falsehoods is the equivalent of admitting that what I've said is true.
"... anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article,..."
And here you are, inadvertently admitting that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution.
Again, verifying my belief.
Peruse article 1, section 8.
After you do so, you will understand why FDR's creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were equally unconstitutional....and, therefore, the mortgage meltdown must be laid at his feet, as well.
FDR found it, the Democratic party found it, the Supreme Court found it, and you're having trouble? So, anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article, it's just after the preamble. Let me know when that's found and we'll move on.
None of what you posted is true.
I've always believed that a post filled with falsehoods is the equivalent of admitting that what I've said is true.
"... anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article,..."
And here you are, inadvertently admitting that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution.
Again, verifying my belief.
Peruse article 1, section 8.
After you do so, you will understand why FDR's creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were equally unconstitutional....and, therefore, the mortgage meltdown must be laid at his feet, as well.
The groundwork was laid at an afternoon tea when Justice Stone said to Perkins, the power to tax, and so the power to tax for the general welfare was it. Notice in your constitution that the power to tax was the first of the 17 powers. Was it because the power to tax was most important to the framers or because they believed that later FDR would need the power to tax for Social Security?
FDR found it, the Democratic party found it, the Supreme Court found it, and you're having trouble? So, anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article, it's just after the preamble. Let me know when that's found and we'll move on.
None of what you posted is true.
I've always believed that a post filled with falsehoods is the equivalent of admitting that what I've said is true.
"... anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article,..."
And here you are, inadvertently admitting that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution.
Again, verifying my belief.
Peruse article 1, section 8.
After you do so, you will understand why FDR's creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were equally unconstitutional....and, therefore, the mortgage meltdown must be laid at his feet, as well.
The groundwork was laid at an afternoon tea when Justice Stone said to Perkins, the power to tax, and so the power to tax for the general welfare was it. Notice in your constitution that the power to tax was the first of the 17 powers. Was it because the power to tax was most important to the framers or because they believed that later FDR would need the power to tax for Social Security?
None of what you posted is true.
I've always believed that a post filled with falsehoods is the equivalent of admitting that what I've said is true.
"... anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article,..."
And here you are, inadvertently admitting that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution.
Again, verifying my belief.
Peruse article 1, section 8.
After you do so, you will understand why FDR's creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were equally unconstitutional....and, therefore, the mortgage meltdown must be laid at his feet, as well.
The groundwork was laid at an afternoon tea when Justice Stone said to Perkins, the power to tax, and so the power to tax for the general welfare was it. Notice in your constitution that the power to tax was the first of the 17 powers. Was it because the power to tax was most important to the framers or because they believed that later FDR would need the power to tax for Social Security?
"Welfare" to the Founders was the health, well-being, happiness, opportunity to prosper in the general population. It was not social services provided by the government, but regulation and promotion of shared services and opportunities. The Federal government could prevent Colorado from polluting water in a river shared with New Mexico or otherwise regulate shared resources of land, water, and air, but it would not be a legitimate function of the federal government to provide a doctor for somebody or pay somebody's medical bills.
The taxation clause in Article 1 says specifically:
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;
And. . .
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (An exception to this provision was made for income taxes authorized by the 16th Amendment.)
The Founders were very strong in their belief that the government of the USA must keep faith with its creditors and pay its bills. They naively assumed that a government limited by what the Constitution authorized would not become a financial burden on the people.
They did not envision a Teddy Roosevelt who would stand that concept on its head by declaring he and the government could do any damn thing the Constitution did not expressly forbid. And it all started falling apart from that point on.
FDR found it, the Democratic party found it, the Supreme Court found it, and you're having trouble? So, anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article, it's just after the preamble. Let me know when that's found and we'll move on.
None of what you posted is true.
I've always believed that a post filled with falsehoods is the equivalent of admitting that what I've said is true.
"... anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article,..."
And here you are, inadvertently admitting that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution.
Again, verifying my belief.
Peruse article 1, section 8.
After you do so, you will understand why FDR's creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were equally unconstitutional....and, therefore, the mortgage meltdown must be laid at his feet, as well.
The groundwork was laid at an afternoon tea when Justice Stone said to Perkins, the power to tax, and so the power to tax for the general welfare was it. Notice in your constitution that the power to tax was the first of the 17 powers. Was it because the power to tax was most important to the framers or because they believed that later FDR would need the power to tax for Social Security?
The groundwork was laid at an afternoon tea when Justice Stone said to Perkins, the power to tax, and so the power to tax for the general welfare was it. Notice in your constitution that the power to tax was the first of the 17 powers. Was it because the power to tax was most important to the framers or because they believed that later FDR would need the power to tax for Social Security?
"Welfare" to the Founders was the health, well-being, happiness, opportunity to prosper in the general population. It was not social services provided by the government, but regulation and promotion of shared services and opportunities. The Federal government could prevent Colorado from polluting water in a river shared with New Mexico or otherwise regulate shared resources of land, water, and air, but it would not be a legitimate function of the federal government to provide a doctor for somebody or pay somebody's medical bills.
The taxation clause in Article 1 says specifically:
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;
And. . .
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (An exception to this provision was made for income taxes authorized by the 16th Amendment.)
The Founders were very strong in their belief that the government of the USA must keep faith with its creditors and pay its bills. They naively assumed that a government limited by what the Constitution authorized would not become a financial burden on the people.
They did not envision a Teddy Roosevelt who would stand that concept on its head by declaring he and the government could do any damn thing the Constitution did not expressly forbid. And it all started falling apart from that point on.
Actually this loose and strict interpretation of the Constitution began with the Washington administration. Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury wanted what has been called loose construction of the Constitution and Jefferson strict. When Jefferson became president he changed somewhat because nowhere in the Constitution does it give the president the power to buy Louisiana, but he did anyway. Usually strong presidents i.e. Teddy Roosevelt, Jackson, FDR, Lincoln etc. favor loose construction.
None of what you posted is true.
I've always believed that a post filled with falsehoods is the equivalent of admitting that what I've said is true.
"... anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article,..."
And here you are, inadvertently admitting that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution.
Again, verifying my belief.
Peruse article 1, section 8.
After you do so, you will understand why FDR's creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were equally unconstitutional....and, therefore, the mortgage meltdown must be laid at his feet, as well.
The groundwork was laid at an afternoon tea when Justice Stone said to Perkins, the power to tax, and so the power to tax for the general welfare was it. Notice in your constitution that the power to tax was the first of the 17 powers. Was it because the power to tax was most important to the framers or because they believed that later FDR would need the power to tax for Social Security?
1. The three clauses that have been used by the courts since the New Deal to expand federal power are the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Taxation Clause, which give birth to the spending clause.
2. Professor Randy Barnett:
I have always been attracted to Madisons view that there is no freestanding Spending Clause, but only a power to spend what is necessary and properly incident to the enumerated powers. Madison did not believe that the spending power grew out of the taxation power, but instead that all exercise of the spending power had to be incident to the other enumerated powers.
Originalism, Steven Calabresi, p. 263.
3. The New Deal courts didnt rely on a broader reading of the Commerce Clause instead it expanded the Necessary and Proper Clause to enlarge the powers of the national government.
So, it that didnt have to use Commerce, it reached activity that was clearly not commerce through the Necessary and Proper Clause.
a. James Madison, in referring to the Necessary and Proper Clause, said The sweeping clause only extended to the enumerated powers.
b. Edmund Pendleton, president of the Convention, insisted that this clause did not go a single step beyond the delegated powers . If [Congress were] about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the delegated powers, but can by no means depart from them, or arrogate any new powers; for the plain language of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give effect to the delegated powers. http://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/c...6/issue2/Barnett6U.Pa.J.Const.L.183(2003).pdf
Pay special attention, here:
4. St. George Tuckers treatise is the first learned commentary on the Constitution, published in 1802, and describes exactly the rule of construction with respect to the enumerated powers, and the rights retained by the states and by the people.
The opinions of the Supreme Court should echo the theory of strict construction first presented in works like St. George Tucker's View of the Constitution and James Madison's Report on the Alien and Sedition Acts, and reflect this rule of interpretation: federal power must be narrowly construed in order to prevent undue interference with matters best left under state control.
In the words of St. George Tucker, the Constitution "is to be construed strictly, in all cases where the antecedent rights of a state may be drawn in question.
Tucker, View of the Constitution, supra note 6, ed. app. at 151.
'
Note how different the view of the folks who wrote the founding documents was from those of the megalomaniac who saw himself as Emperor Franklin the First.
None of what you posted is true.
I've always believed that a post filled with falsehoods is the equivalent of admitting that what I've said is true.
"... anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article,..."
And here you are, inadvertently admitting that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution.
Again, verifying my belief.
Peruse article 1, section 8.
After you do so, you will understand why FDR's creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were equally unconstitutional....and, therefore, the mortgage meltdown must be laid at his feet, as well.
The groundwork was laid at an afternoon tea when Justice Stone said to Perkins, the power to tax, and so the power to tax for the general welfare was it. Notice in your constitution that the power to tax was the first of the 17 powers. Was it because the power to tax was most important to the framers or because they believed that later FDR would need the power to tax for Social Security?
What, exactly is the limitation of "... the power to tax..."?
You seem to believe that there is none....
1. 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; .
a. Hamiltons view was that this clause gave Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, whatsoever they decide that might be.
b. William Drayton, in 1828, came down on the side of Madison, Jefferson and others, pointing out that if Hamilton was correct, what point would there have been to enumerate Congresses other powers?
If Congress wished to do anything it was not authorized to do, it could accomplish it via taxing and spending. He said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?"
'Charity Not a Proper Function of the American Government' by Walter E. Williams
The groundwork was laid at an afternoon tea when Justice Stone said to Perkins, the power to tax, and so the power to tax for the general welfare was it. Notice in your constitution that the power to tax was the first of the 17 powers. Was it because the power to tax was most important to the framers or because they believed that later FDR would need the power to tax for Social Security?
What, exactly is the limitation of "... the power to tax..."?
You seem to believe that there is none....
1. 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;….
a. Hamilton’s view was that this clause gave Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, whatsoever they decide that might be.
b. William Drayton, in 1828, came down on the side of Madison, Jefferson and others, pointing out that if Hamilton was correct, what point would there have been to enumerate Congresses’ other powers?
If Congress wished to do anything it was not authorized to do, it could accomplish it via taxing and spending. He said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?"
'Charity Not a Proper Function of the American Government' by Walter E. Williams
People in and out of government have been debating this loose and strict construction of the Constitution even before that document was ratified, and the song continues. The only opinions that really count, are the Courts. As Justice Hughes said, the Constitution is what the Court say it is.
Not needed, a stitch in time and all that.
Not needed if one ignores the Constitution.
Can you find it in the enumerated powers?
Exactly. Those, both Democrat and Republican, who opposed Social Security back in 1935 opposed it not because they wanted to deprive old folk of anything or because they thought it was a bad concept. They opposed it because their understanding of the Constitution was that the federal government had no authorization to implement such a program and no authority to tax the people to fund it...
Are you implying that Republicans were willing accomplices to FDR's evil imposition of Socialist Security upon us?
If Social Security were a bill today and before today's House and Senate would Republicans allow passage of Social Security as they did in 1935 or threaten to shut down the government? While it was different times in 35, I'll bet today's House would fight Social Security just as it fights Obama-care. They cannot stand to see the American people benefit from government as business does.
In 1935 FDR was behind SS as were the people but today Obama-care is iffy with the people and Republicans control the House so it was a different ball game in 1935, but I bet they would vote a and
Those who opposed social security in 1935 did so because they found no Constitutional authority for Congress to vote such a program. And many had the vision to do the math and see how, like all pyramid schemes, it would eventually begin to collapse under its own weight. Which it has now done and will increasingly do.
I would like to believe we elect to government intelligent and educated people who have a sense of history. And not only would they oppose Obamacare for the same reasons those opposed social security all those decades ago, but they also now have the benefit of experience and history to illustrate and foresee the folly of such entitlement programs.
Of course Obama worshippers and lovers of big government shrug aside such arguments and instead attempt to demonize those who argue via logic and reason rather than a house of cards built on pure emotional appeal.
Far too much of our public education system now exalts that house of cards and refuses to teach the honest history.
There is a link.
There is a reason for the link.
There is a date therein.
Yes, ma'am.
And your link says this:
"Since the cash-flow deficit will be less than interest earnings through 2020, reserves of the combined trust funds measured in current dollars will continue to grow...."
What did I tell you? Social Security is not currently, nor has it been, for the last 2 years
"in the red".
You are not in the red if you are still taking in more money than you're paying out.
Your link ironically is the same link I repeatedly use to debunk your myth. This time you saved me the trouble of digging it up.
Then explain this chart that was created in 2011:
Also written in 2011:
President Barack Obama was closer to the mark than some of his Democratic allies when he said that Social Security is not the huge contributor to the deficit that [Medicare and Medicaid] are. Thats correct: Medicare and Medicaid consume more borrowed funds than Social Security, and their costs are growing more rapidly. But Obamas own budget director, Jacob Lew, was misleading when he wrote recently that Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. Thats not true, except in a very narrow, legalistic sense, and doesnt change the fact that Social Security is now a small but growing drain on the governments finances. . . .
. . . .Matters are even worse than this chart shows. In December, Congress passed a Social Security tax reduction. Workers are temporarily paying 2 percentage points less, from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, in Social Security payroll taxes this calendar year. Since the government is making up the shortfall out of general revenues, CBOs deficit projections for the trust funds do not include that. But CBOs figures predict that the payroll tax holiday will cost the governments general fund $85 billion in this fiscal year and $29 billion in fiscal year 2012 (which starts Oct.1, 2011.) Since every dollar of that will have to be borrowed, the combined effect of the tax holiday and the annual deficits will amount to a $130 billion addition to the federal deficit in the current fiscal year, and $59 billion in fiscal 2012.
Social Security has passed a tipping point. For years it generated more revenue than it consumed, holding down the overall federal deficit and allowing Congress to spend more freely for other things. But those days are gone. Rather than lessening the federal deficit, Social Security has at last as long predicted become a drag on the governments overall finances.
Democrats Deny Social Security?s Red Ink
Speaking of history all those arguments Republicans used to fight Social Security are still in the history books and available for viewing, pretty much the Obama-care arguments.
But a bigger question: is it possible that if Republicans could capture all three branches of government today they would try to kill Social Security? How about Medicare?
They didn't try to kill social security less than 10 years ago when they had all three branches of government. The Democrats still controlled the media who had the power to instill terror into the hearts of the people if even the most reasonable reform was suggested. And so the GOP caved rather than jeopardize their majority. Which they lost anyway because they were both irresponsible with the people's money and wimps. And the people who voted them out got a far worse devil in return for rejecting the one they knew.
But yes, given the dismal track record of social security and the huge albatross around our collective necks that it has become, I would hope to God that the Republicans would reject Obamacare with the almost certainty that it will not only big a bigger and more devastating albatross, but it will dismantle one of the world's finest healthcare systems.
If the history books had been honest about the legacy of all the entitlements that have gone on the books since 1935, maybe even the most staunch of the Obama worshippers would have been educated on the folly that we are doing. But with liberals in firm control of the public education system, that hasn't happened. And won't in the foreseeable future.
Ah yes, now, thanks to a poster, I remember that Bush wanted to "privatize" or something Social Security but that didn't last long. I guess privatize meant give the program to the boys in the back room or kill it. But after some trial balloons Bush's plan died a quiet death.
But even as silly as Bush's plan was, the Republicans giving the health care plan the name, Obama-care was as dumb. America's health plan will be known by Obama-care for the next 100 years or more, or as long as America lasts, what a legacy.
They didn't try to kill social security less than 10 years ago when they had all three branches of government. The Democrats still controlled the media who had the power to instill terror into the hearts of the people if even the most reasonable reform was suggested. And so the GOP caved rather than jeopardize their majority. Which they lost anyway because they were both irresponsible with the people's money and wimps. And the people who voted them out got a far worse devil in return for rejecting the one they knew.
But yes, given the dismal track record of social security and the huge albatross around our collective necks that it has become, I would hope to God that the Republicans would reject Obamacare with the almost certainty that it will not only big a bigger and more devastating albatross, but it will dismantle one of the world's finest healthcare systems.
If the history books had been honest about the legacy of all the entitlements that have gone on the books since 1935, maybe even the most staunch of the Obama worshippers would have been educated on the folly that we are doing. But with liberals in firm control of the public education system, that hasn't happened. And won't in the foreseeable future.
Ah yes, now, thanks to a poster, I remember that Bush wanted to "privatize" or something Social Security but that didn't last long. I guess privatize meant give the program to the boys in the back room or kill it. But after some trial balloons Bush's plan died a quiet death.
But even as silly as Bush's plan was, the Republicans giving the health care plan the name, Obama-care was as dumb. America's health plan will be known by Obama-care for the next 100 years or more, or as long as America lasts, what a legacy.
The private sector wants to manage your retirement money, of course. But they want a much bigger fee for that than Social Security will ever take.
Instead of the hushed tones and hagiography of the FDR-sycophants, a study of those closest to Roosevelt, and closest to the communists, poses important questions about Franklin Roosevelt, and his intentions.
1. For whatever reason, FDR wasted no time in welcoming the sociopath of the community of nations, the USSR, with open arms.
He assumed office in March of 1933, and on November 16th, 1933, signed a worthless agreement with Litvinov, recognizing the USSR.
Four previous Presidents and six Secretaries of State had refused to do same. What did they know that FDR didn't know.....or did he know?
2. Ironic....normalizing relations with the least normal of nations.
The major thesis of Diana West's block-buster, "American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character, " is that the acts of FDR in this endeavor, led to the moral breakdown of our nation. Once the horrors of the Holocaust became known, Progressives, who had earlier loudly proclaimed kinship with both Hitler and Mussolini, scattered like roaches when the lights are switched on.
Yet...they clung...and cling....to the Soviet murderers and cutthroats to this day.
It is worth considering.
a. If one need an explanation for the postmodernism, the moral relativism that pervades our society....Don't miss West's exposition.
3. But, to move on to a brighter light in the historic firmament, there was FDR close friend, on equally a Sovietophile, William Christian Bullitt, Jr.
Also an extreme Liberal, a radical, he had worked for Woodrow Wilson, and, of course, was a fervent believer in internationalism.
"Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.
4. An aside here...William Bullitt, Jr., was not, it seems, the brightest light in his own family. At the same time that the press was trumpeting his role in the Roosevelt/Litvinov Agreement, "Soviet Pact Held Bullitt Triumph," his uncle, Archdeacon James F. Bullitt, was making headlines of his own: "Bullitt's Uncle Says Soviet Deal Disgraces The United States." 'Russia will keep no promises with us."
"For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 82
5. Ambassador Bullitt soon recognized the truth. Every 'pledge,' 'promise,' and 'assurance," that the Soviets had tricked Roosevelt into believing- if 'believing' is the accurate explanation- on war debt, on the treatment of American nationals and property in the USSR, on religious freedom, on subversion in the United States, and, of course, on fomenting revolution in the United States, was worthless. As dense a Liberal as Bullitt was, he saw Stalin convene the world's Communist parties, including the American Communist Party (CPUSA), in the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, 1935. CPUSA leaders Earl Browder and William Foster took leading roles. So much for the pledges.
West, "American Betrayal," p. 197.
a. "This not only proved that [the Soviets] still pursued the goal of world revolution, but it also proved that they were breaking their promise in the letters exchanged between Roosevelt and Litvinov in November 1933 which stipulated that Moscow would have nothing to do with the American Communist Party."
Dunn, "Caught Between Roosevelt and Stalin," p. 49.
6. Bullitt suggested that Roosevelt would feel obliged to break relations. He was wrong. "If we should not [break relations] the Soviet Government would be convinced that it could break its pledges with impunity and would feel free to direct actively the American communist movement."
Bullitt, Op. Cit., p. 130-131.
See what I mean about FDR pushing America down the path to moral relativism?
Future ambassador William H. Standley gave similar advice to FDR.....which he also ignored.
a. "... he later became an outspoken anticommunist..... Though Bullitt arrived in the Soviet Union with high hopes for Soviet-American relations, his view of the Soviet leadership soured on closer inspection. By the end of his tenure he was openly hostile to the Soviet government. He remained an outspoken anticommunist for the rest of his life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.
Ambassador Bullitt was sent to Moscow by FDR and was a witness, a primary source, sending the cables to FDR.
He learned first hand the horrors of communism.
But not FDR.
FDR, Bullitt...and the fork in the road.
Still think we took the right...er, left one, as the correct course?
Ah yes, now, thanks to a poster, I remember that Bush wanted to "privatize" or something Social Security but that didn't last long. I guess privatize meant give the program to the boys in the back room or kill it. But after some trial balloons Bush's plan died a quiet death.
But even as silly as Bush's plan was, the Republicans giving the health care plan the name, Obama-care was as dumb. America's health plan will be known by Obama-care for the next 100 years or more, or as long as America lasts, what a legacy.
The private sector wants to manage your retirement money, of course. But they want a much bigger fee for that than Social Security will ever take.
Didn't Gore propose, instead of the bushii tax cuts, giving people a tax credit roughly equal to the Soc Sec surplus, so long as the money was put into a sort of IRA index fund that managers couldn't rip off? Bushii mocked it (it's your money so you should choose to buy a four wheeler instead), but in retrospect, we'd be better off with Gore's proposal, and Vanguard has proven the wisdom of low cost funds.
The private sector wants to manage your retirement money, of course. But they want a much bigger fee for that than Social Security will ever take.
Didn't Gore propose, instead of the bushii tax cuts, giving people a tax credit roughly equal to the Soc Sec surplus, so long as the money was put into a sort of IRA index fund that managers couldn't rip off? Bushii mocked it (it's your money so you should choose to buy a four wheeler instead), but in retrospect, we'd be better off with Gore's proposal, and Vanguard has proven the wisdom of low cost funds.
The family story was true, my old great gandpappy went down to the bank as the Great Depression was starting, it was his monthly visit to pull out some money for the month. Lo and behold the bank was closed, locked up tight. It seems the bank had invested grandpappy's and a lot of other grandpappy's money into "can't lose stocks." The stock lost it all and grandpappy never got a dime of his retirement savings back. The bank was torn down and that ended the story.
Stock company's have been eyeing that Social Security money for a long time now and never seem to stop working to turn it into Can't-Lose stocks.
