The Crash Course

[GuyFawkes]

Promoting the general welfare didn't start as welfare payments. General Welfare means to benefit the entire nation. It was intended as a limit to prevent 'specific benefit to a certain group' Building roads or dredging a canal was prohibited for the federal Gov't because the benefit was for that region, not the nation in general. National health care would be specifically prohibited because it benefits individuals at the expense of tax payers.

Bzzzzt.

Wrong.

Social Security has nothing to do with providing financial security to individuals.

Social Security has everything to do with providing Society with security from individuals.

Here in the UK Social Security means nobody has to starve, nobody has to live in a cardboard box, nobody has to sell their liver to pay for their kids insulin.

As a result, nobody has any legitimate excuse to prey on other individuals, eg society, to live.

Social security makes stealing food from your plate a morally justifiable punishable offence.

Since then of course there has been mission creep.

[clytle374]

@Guy.  Very well put.

[SHIPCHIEF]

I was just paraphasing from the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, so don't mind me.
However I can see Guy's point, how it found it's way into existance, and the mission creep too.
 I certainly hope it still exists in a meaningful way when I reach retirement age, after all, I've paid in at the highest rate for more than 3 times the vesting period.
Social security was started during the great depression, and was clearly illegal. Roosevelt had to threaten to force judges over 70 to retire, and pack the court to get them to go along with it.
Social security is believed to have caused the 1937 ressesion, and payouts were doubled and moved forward 2 years, thereby changing the program from a 'payout from an investment pool' to a 'pay as you go' insurance program.
You can read about it here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)
Hers a nice little 'lift' from well down the page:
The negative financial outlook
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, during the phase-in period of Social Security, Congress was able to grant generous benefit increases because the system had perpetual short-run surpluses. Congressional amendments to Social Security took place in even numbered years (election years) because the bills were politically popular, but by the late 1970s, this era was over. For the next three decades, projections of Social Security's finances would show large, long-term deficits, and in the early 1980s, the program flirted with immediate insolvency. From this point on, amendments to Social Security would take place in odd numbered years (years that were not election years) because Social Security reform now meant tax increases and benefit reductions. Social Security became known as the "Third Rail of American Politics." Touching it meant political death.

Several effects came together in the years following the 1972 amendments which rapidly changed the outlook on Social Security's long-term financial picture from positive to problematic. By the 1970s, the phase-in period, during which workers were paying taxes but few were collecting benefits, was largely over, and the ratio of elderly population to the working population was increasing. These developments brought questions about the capacity of the long term financial structure based on a pay-as-you-go program.

During the Carter administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil and energy crises, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1%, compared to 3.2% during the 1960s. There was also a growing federal budget deficit which increased to $66 billion. The 1970s are described as a period of stagflation, meaning economic stagnation coupled with price inflation, as well as higher interest rates. Price inflation (a rise in the general level of prices) creates uncertainty in budgeting and planning and makes labor strikes for pay raises more likely.

These underlying negative trends were exacerbated by a colossal mathematical error made in the 1972 amendments establishing the COLAs. The mathematical error which overcompensated for inflation was particularly detrimental given the double-digit inflation of this period, and the error led to benefit increases that were nowhere near financially sustainable.

The high inflation, double-indexing, and lower than expected wage growth was financial disaster for Social Security.

[clytle374]

Social security was started during the great depression, and was clearly illegal. Roosevelt had to threaten to force judges over 70 to retire, and pack the court to get them to go along with it.

This was also the beginning of several trends. 

Firstly our money started its journey to a fiat currency, no longer tied to substance of value.  Oops, sorry, backed by the full faith of the US government.  I find my lack of faith disturbing. 

Second most note worthy is the beginning of rampant use of the Interstate Commerce Clause, the single power granted to federal government that has become the basis for most all laws today.  Before that time the fed knew that in order to outlaw alcohol it required an amendment to the constitution, now they outlaw about anything under the ICC.  Recently the supreme court decided someone growing and smoking pot in their own home effected interstate commerce, and could be outlawed through the ICC.


And on the gold issue.  I almost laugh now when people seem almost violent in their opposition to gold.  If my father had put his retirement in gold he would be sitting very pretty right now.  I friend of mine had a 401K at a job she only worked for about a year.  She had forgotten about it until tax season.  The banker had really pressured her to take high risk/return investments since she was young.  Long story short, it was put into gold, got a high return.  Much better than the net loss most people are seeing.  I have expected this system to collapse for so long now I was starting to think I was wrong. 

[LowGear]

Now I remember why I got hooked on this site.  Lister Engines.  When you realize you're becoming a victim of mission creeps (people that push an organization away from it’s foundation where it might fall) you must return to the basics.  Rave on my captains of capitalism and the free enterprise system I’ve got a biodiesel plant that needs some welding. 

Cheers

Casey

[apogee_man]

I find statements like this deeply disturbing and, in my view, is one of the pillars of the views of the right.

It also couldn't be more in error imho.

"They can't see that Gov't produces nothing, it drains the economy to perform administrative functions to keep the nation running smoothly."

"Gov't produces nothing..."

Hmmmm. 

I for one, value clean water, clean air, the arts, open space, the ease of getting from one place to another, fishing, etc, etc, etc.  Basically the things that make life worth living.

The "product" that govt tries to produce is some semblance of balance between all out raping and pillaging of the environment for the almighty dollar vs quality of life.

Maybe it's okay with you to have your employer tell you (not ask) that you WILL work 16 hrs a day, seven days a week for the next 5 years (or find another job) while living next to a facility that is belching acrid black smoke and draining heavy metal contaminated water into your drinking aquifer.

It's not okay with me.

Industry as shown that it is incapable of regulating itself over and over and over again.  Hence, there is a need for policing in one form or another.

While I don't like regulation anymore than any of you, I do feel that I have also have a right to live in a relatively clean place and not have my life completely dominated by someone or some company seeking to squeeze an extra buck here or there.  Or, simply not giving a rip about the environment because they're either too short-sighted or stupid to see the big picture.

That is the "product" of government.

Trash the ecosystem and our species (and many others) is history.  The right had better figure that concept out and wrap their minds around it.  The days of the wild, wild west all in the name of maximizing profit at the expense of everyone and everything else are long gone. 

That is, if ANY of us are to survive long-term.

Steve

[clytle374]

@apogee_man.  Why does this have to be a federal issue?  Don't these issues vary from state to state?  Why did the fed overturn California's stricter vehicle emission laws? 

I'm arguing a Libertarian stand point.  If someone is polluting your water supply, they must clean it up.  Not like the federal regulations where General Electric has finally, after decades, been forced to clean up the Hudson.   Dumping toxins in a river should be consider negligent homicide, not just some fine able offense. 

@LowGear 

General Discussion Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.

  Don't worry, I'm used to being mocked and laughed at.  If I'm right you won't mind me laughing back, right?   Capitalism works fine until they own the government.   And we are going to need some serious federal regulations on that biodiesel plant. 

[apogee_man]

The reason behind it needing to be a federal issue is simple.

As an example, lets take a river that flows across three states.

Let's assume that some company is polluting the headwaters of the river.

With a patchwork of regulations being left up to the states and nothing at the federal level, everyone downstream who is affected by this example has no recourse if the state where the headwaters are located chooses to do nothing.

Even if the affected states sue to the Supreme Court, it could take ten years or more of everyone being affected before the subject state gets forced to do something (and even then, it's highly unlikely).

That leaves the courts on the civil side.  Again, ten years or more before there is a chance of anyone getting a judgment large enough to change said company's behavior.

Meanwhile everyone downstream continues to be affected.

THIS is why it's a federal issue.

Same with air quality.

I'm of the opinion that California has gone too far in many cases.  On the other hand, I grew up south of Los Angeles and remember driving a truck through downtown LA in summer where you couldn't see a freeway sign 50 yards away, while sitting in traffic, due to the smog.

It's not like that anymore.

So, while I strongly disagree with the rules they keep putting in place because they're so strict, there is no arguing that they are working.

However, a by-product of those same rules is it makes it much more expensive for industry to conduct business there and that is a negative for that region...

The point is, granulization doesn't work.  While local areas definitely need input, there needs to be an overall sweeping layer that keeps things relatively uniform.

Another example would be where you live (wherever that may be).  I would bet that next to the main city, there are other smaller cities located adjacent to it.  What if one of those small cities fired up a really dirty coal plant and the wind carried the emissions directly into the large city next door.  Is it right that the small city should be able to say "we choose not to enforce any air quality regulations" and the option of those in the city next door either to sue, being forced to move or live with it?

I would contend that the sovereignty concept doesn't work. 

Where are the lines best drawn?  The state level?  The county level?  The city level?  Private property boundary level?

Take national security.  All of the states had different driver's license standards.  Yet the public is allowed to freely traverse from one state to the next.  So, in one state a terrorist could walk up to licensing authority and receive a license without ID which then enabled that individual to function in the state next door that would have required ID.

You get the picture.

Make no mistake, I'm not an advocate of big govt.  Nor am I an advocate of doing away with state rights.  I'm just pointing out the flaws in the current system, and imho they are HUGE.

Like I said above, it's a matter of balance. The pendulum swings back and forth and somehow, imho, the average is better than either extreme.

[apogee_man]

"Why did the fed overturn California's stricter vehicle emission laws?"

I would contend that it had everything to do with politicians being in the pocket of big business and nothing to do with reality.

The automakers knew that many states follow California's lead regarding emissions.  Hence, if California had been allowed to continue tightening the screws, it may have significantly affected automaker profits.

Not a risk they were willing to take.

The current system has all been bought and paid for by big business.  Make no mistake about that.

I also don't think there are really two parties.  I think there is a shadow structure in place that is running things.

It would be like one company owning two football teams.  Both teams do their best while ultimately operating within the guidelines established by the company. 

The same company who also controls the media that is pumping both teams.

I also believe most of the American people are too stupid to see it.

[apogee_man]

"If someone is polluting your water supply, they must clean it up. "

Says who?

That's the point.

Laws on the books without the political will to enforce them are a waste of everyone's time.

[clytle374]

The reason behind it needing to be a federal issue is simple.

As an example, take a river that flows across three states.

Let's assume that some company is polluting the headwaters of the river.

With the patchwork of regulations being left up to the states, everyone downstream who is affected by this example has no recourse if the state where the headwaters are located chooses to do nothing.

Even if the affected states sue to the Supreme Court, it could take ten years or more of everyone being affected before the subject state gets forced to do something (and even then, it's highly unlikely).

That leaves the courts on the civil side.  Again, ten years or more before there is a chance of anyone getting a judgment large enough to change said company's behavior.

THIS is why it's a federal issue.

Same with air quality.

I'm of the opinion that California has gone too far in many cases.  On the other hand, I grew up south of Los Angeles and remember driving a truck through downtown LA in summer where you couldn't see a freeway sign 50 yards away due to the smog.

It's not like that anymore.

So, while I strongly disagree with the rules they keep putting in place because they're so strict, there is no arguing that they are working.

However, a by-product of those same rules is it makes it much more expensive for industry to conduct business there and that is a negative for that region...

Like I said above, it's a matter of balance. The pendulum swings back and forth and somehow the average is better than either extreme.

I don't agree that it works all that well.

The river argument is very valid, and I believe does fall into interstate commerce.  Now we have an EPA the dictates what and how much you are allowed to dump in the rivers.  With zero recourse against people within these rules, even when damage is done.   The rules are too influenced by business and politics.  Few with any knowledge argue that sewage, treated or not is destroying rivers and creating dead zones in the oceans where these rivers meet them.  But those are left alone.  Fertilizers do the same and are left alone.  Why don't we outlaw draining things in the rivers altogether?  If you make it, you deal with it, whether you have money or not.   There is a small river that runs along the highway a couple of miles from where I live.  A small town installed a sewage treatment plant the empties into the river.  Nothing lives in that river now, they got EPA approval and nothing can be done.  But if you want to irrigate with that river, it's not happening.  Hydroelectric, forgetaboutit.

Then the air.  Spitting out toxins in the air is unavoidable, especially now that CO2 is a pollutant.  But we haven't helped it much, if we haven't made it worse.  We just outsourced it to other countries, many with no environmental protections.  Didn't California regulate their own emissions to clean up the smog problem that was heavily influenced by their own environment?  I remember when the law stated that a auto shop couldn't remove the catalytic converter on your car.  But you could do it yourself, not interstate commerce.    Now it is regulated to the point that our own Listeroids are for all intents and purposes dead.  With rules that make you guilty, if you don't have tons of cash, even if your emissions are better than mandated.  If California wants to outlaw everything that is combustible, let them.  

My point isn't that some of this shouldn't be done on a federal level, it is the Fed has no right to do most of it now.  What I do believe is this:  If we regulated more things on a local level.  We would deal with them better for our particular situation, not California's situation.  We would also help remove the influence of big businesses since things are easier to manage on a small scale.  

Either way the states rights movement is gain more steam than I could have imagined even a year ago, with states even passing laws denying the Fed the powers it believes it has.  One more reason to believe that the status quo is fixing to change.  

[clytle374]

"If someone is polluting your water supply, they must clean it up. "

Says who?

That's the point.

Laws on the books without the political will to enforce them are a waste of everyone's time.

This an example of businesses running the government.  I recklessly endanger lives, I go to jail.  Businesses are always demanding protections as if they are a person, but they endanger lives knowingly they don't go to jail.  Unless they steal the money of someone important money, then maybe.

[LowGear]

Damn the luck.  The batteries in my helmet are dead.  (I know, I know I’ve heard it before but this time it’s a literal explanation)  

Yes, Yes, boys.  We’re inherently good and will do the right thing and will always obey our allegiance to the dollar and society will be better off without governments and other such insidious mental defects.  

To be a Libertarian must you first swear allegiance to the tooth fairy or is it part of the secret decoder ring program?  It’s a tough world and there are a lot of very nasty persons out there.  

And then there are the willfully ignorant.  I took over a farm that had been sprayed with defoliant four times a year by the previous owner and, of course, it looked very pimpy.  I ran into the spray man a couple of years later and he accused me of letting the farm drop down a click or two.  I confessed to him we weren’t using herbicides anymore and asked if he’d rather have his pregnant daughter eat fruit from the farm now or the fruit that came from it the last year her worked there.  His response was “What do you mean?”

Back to the mower and personal therapy.

Casey

[LowGear]

Hello clytle374,

I'm pretty sure there is serious federal regulation on biodiesel and I presume the plants.  It's a hazardous waste.  Actually waste vegetable oil is also regarded as a hazardous waste.

Casey

[SHIPCHIEF]

WOW! you guys have been busy, and I read every word.
I believe in Good Stewardship. Water flowing on to your property needs to be just as clean when it flows off etc.
I believe that Apogeeman declared federal regulation as a product. I was refering to comercial 'taxable' hold in your hand kind of production. I understand that the Gov't has good reason to exist. I don't consider that to be a product, I consider it a regulatory framework that holds the society together and keeps it running smooth and fair. OK? I'm diferentiating the expense of gov't taken from the production of the people. It can be just as evil as a Company Town that underpays it's employees and overcharges at the company store. The issue here is limits on the size of gov't, yet meeting the regulatory needs of the society. Just like antitrust laws (are supposed to) prevent buisness monopolies that harm society.
I'm concerned that the growth in the national debt and increase in the size and authority of gov't will stall the recovery and mess with or future prosperity.
I noticed in this mornings 'paper' (i read it online because I don't want the paper around, plus it's still free) that the city of Seattle is refusing to buy the state mandated biodiesel, because they are concerned that it is a worse pollutant that regular ultra low sulfer diesel. It's also a lot more expensive, so read into it what you will.