If the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional, why isn't Social Security?

Legit question, in my opinion, as both force a payment into an insurance system. So, if Obamacare is ruled as such by the SCOTUS, is it inevitable someone will use the ruling to take argument against Social Security to the highest court?

s*** happens. That's life.

Yep, who gives a s***, just get on with it. Or vote Ron Paul.

So your answer is that SS is unconstitutional and to just leave it anyways? Not sure what you're trying to say.

I have neither affirmed nor denied the constitutionality of SS or of Obamacare. That is something to be left for the Supreme Court.
All that I meant was, some a*****e is bound to question it, and that would seem to fit, hand-in-glove, with what you are saying.


After its inception, SS has become one of the greatest of injustices perpetrated upon the population of America by the members of Congress.

Funds that were supposed to be set aside, to provide for the future retirement of all workers, have instead been stolen, and used to provide pet-project funding over the course of many years. What was supposed to be a monthly "fixed" payment, after retirement, has become a variable allotment, and with the latest systemic mandates of the Obamacare travesty, will become less and less, thus driving any existing seniors into abject poverty, if SS is their only source of income.

Well social security is government run, it's done as a tax, though presumably any possibility to privatize SS would be taken off the table by an unconstitutional ruling on Obamacare.

Be careful what you wish for, conservatrons.

When they were collecting a bunch of SS taxes, what should they do with them? Stick them in a bank account or invest them? What better to invest them in than US treasuries? That's what happened, they loaned the money to the government via treasuries, and they get paid back. I don't see what the hoopla is about.

what's a Ron Paul?

Good point. Perhaps the public option initially proposed for Obamacare would have made it a non-issue then. And perhaps if they privatize social security, then, a public option still needs to be in place if they still make it mandatory.

Something happened this week. Due to Obamacare, medicare life's is now elongated for an additional eight years. Instead of running out in 2016, it will now last to 2024.

Social Security is now said to run out at 2033 which is two years less than what was anticipated last year. They are calling for social security reform now, but one of the arguments of now getting rid of social security is that they don't want to stop the program only for the repercussion to be that our elderly are left destitute. In fact, they're doing what they can to jump start it or sustain it as long as they can.



There were a few major stories that broke out this week.

Although even if social security runs out by 2033, the benefits will not run out for another couple decades.

https://www.npr.org/2012/04/23/151231569/how-long-will-social-security-last
https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/04/23/151221764/trustees-warn-social-security-is-headed-toward-insolvency

Overall, no I don't really find it unconstitutional. The only thing I don't like is that in the face of major uncertainty, I don't have an option to "opt out." But the saddest factor is that many people don't know how to invest their money and will most likely squander their money in bad investments. I also don't agree with privatizing social security because it's not in the best interest for the public at large (the everyday average joe). I think it's better in this case to let the government take a small portion and let them invest it for their/our future.
I do support more investment and personal finance education and hope that everyone starts opening their eyes and starts investing on their own properly.

Can you provide backup for this? Have you checked your projected social security lately and have you run the numbers to see that you truly are getting what you should be getting?

Funny you should ask.... I'm already drawing SS, and have been for several years now. You'll recall, I'm sure, how towards the end of 2011 it was announced that the SS payments for all recipients would be increased by a modest amount? I think the number that was bantered about would have amounted to an increase of approximately 200 dollars per year. Then, I received my first monthly check for 2012. It was smaller than the previous years amount, by about 42 dollars. It seems that, in order to make up for the slashing of Medicare funding, the SS payments are being reduced this year, and that the reduction will gradually increase through the next few years, essentially taking the money from SS recipients to offset the reduction of the Medicare funding. It seems to me that the shakers and movers in Congress should be working to remove the inefficiencies and waste from the Medicare/Medicaid programs before they remove food from the mouths of the SS recipients. Now, somewhere back in this thread, El Tino was suggesting that I should be content with the US Treasury 'paying back' the SS Funds that have been used, by the government. That suggestion is also an utter crock! With the economy in the state that it now is, and the Treasury printing the dollars it is using to pay for things, the currency of the country is worth less than it was (there is a loss of buying power of the unit dollar), and as a result, the value of my SS payment, fixed in the tables that are revised periodically, is constantly being reduced! The government is failing in its mission, according to the SS Act, of assuring the financial well-being of its citizenry.

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

Whatever you duz massah, jes PLEEEEEZ don throw this po lil' ol conservitarian in that mean ol briar patch


I'm sure El has heard about it but if anyone else is unfamiliar with what happened when Three Texas counties opted out of SS in 1981 (before they closed the window in 1983 ), check it out.

And for the record, Social Security and Medicare ARE unconstitutional as well, but due to the massive decades long abuse of the "General Welfare" clause, plus the funds that have been extracted from the public, it'll never be ruled unconstitutional for many more decades. Obamacare is unconstitutional for that as well as for forcing people to buy a product, which is what will likely bring its blessed downfall.

Thanks!



So...I'm curious...what gives you the authority to determine the definition of the General Welfare clause that the above 1937 court failed to possess?