@Alfred...You crack me up with your positive comments.

I also hope that Jason's grandfather get's better, it is very distressing when a loved one is ill and makes us reflect on all they have done for us.

Lyle - I hope that makes you feel better...a little pat on the head...good boy. Why does Jason need to politicize his grandfather to make his insipid (and false) political point?

Of course there is nothing wrong with lauding gramps...I never knew mine. Gloves come off when he uses his intentionally untrue information to make his vapid argument.

@Ima Hippee...What is intentionally untrue?

Perhaps the part about involving Ryan, Medicare and his grandfather...

@Hoffa
Facts are irrelevant when you are trying to sway opinion based solely on an emotional response.

@JRH -- But it will alter them for the future working class 'Grandpas' who fought in Iraq and will have an even harder time making ends meet for their working lives now that they're home. They probably won't even be able to afford a brick bungalow to mortgage to help out family.

Randy:

What effect will it really have on the 'future working class grandpas' if we adopt Ryan's plans as opposed to the effect that our current plans for fixing SS and Medicaid will have?

@Cow Dung -- You're assuming a smarter and more humane fix can't be found for Medicare and SSI. Believe me, they exist, outside of Paul Ryan's Ayn Randishpipe dream.

@Randy
Which ones would those be? Tax the rich?

@J.B. -- Well, they're the ones with all the money, aren't they? Perhpas if they hired Americans and paid them more, 'Grandpa' might be able to save better for retirement.

But I'd rather cut waste in both programs. Medicare Advantage has proved to be too expensive, as has Medicare Part D.

@Randy
If only the government was collecting all that money and adding additional regulation, we all might find better pay.

Randy:

Let's get away from all the 'Ann Rand' hyperbole and really take a look at the effects of the changes that are being proposed. Making SS into a 401(k) style system for the retirement benefit portion of it doesn't seem at all 'inhumane'. Giving seniors alternatives for their health benefit provider doesn't seem 'inhumane' either. As I understand, they can use the voucher to buy the same Medicare coverage we have now if they don't want to buy private insurance...

@J.B. Schmidt...Wow, you are so full of human kindness. So, am I supposed to cover through my taxes the education of you five children? I will cover the cost of educating your children because it is the right thing to do, just it is the right thing to do to cover Jason's grandpa without Jason putting his family at risk by taking out a second mortgage. I know many people don't particularly care for Jason and his rhetoric of the past, but because you don't like him, don't use it as an excuse to practice pocket book morality.

Rhetoric of the past? Seems to me nothing much has changed in that regard.

Fine by me, actually. It's a constant reminder to me why this nation and western civilization as a whole is in decline. We've created generations of entitled, arrogant individuals who feel it's society's duty to smooth their way through life for them and allow them to make life decisions without being held accountable for doing so.

@Lyle
It is funny to me how quickly you throw out 'pocket book morality' when discussing the desire for Republicans to reign in entitlement. However, when it comes to an unborn child, suddenly the cost benefits to the family or society can come into play.

Public education is a mess from top to bottom. Reform on how it is paid for is as required as reform on how we take care of our elderly.

I don't think we can cut Jason's grandpa from social security. However, everyone needs to acknowledge that from the day that SS was signed into law(1935), it was,it is and it remains an actuarial disaster;pocketbook morality was practiced by the generations of the past upon the generations of the future.

@J.B. Schmidt..."reign in entitlements" my Aunt Sarah! Every since social security was passed in 1935 the conservatives have been trying to get rid of it. It is my contention that without the social safety net that we have all been paying for, the nation would be much worse off. If we so what is necessary to adequately fund these programs, then the money will be there for future generations. Your buddy Reagan pushed to take more withholding to fund the boomers SS and Medicare. I think the reduction in payroll tax withholding was a major mistake.

I have to agree with Jay Sykes analysis that we've had politicians playing with SS from the moment it was passed. Benefits from SS was not supposed to begin until 1939, yet congress couldn't wait the additional two years to get their hands on the money and started paying out in 1937. I don't know how many times congress has looked at SS as a giant piggy bank to get through short term fiscal difficulty.

It is time to stop complaining and "pony up" and fund the entitlements. If you want to start major cutting, then cut the military in half. We don't need the ability to fight two major wars at the same time. We also don't need a five ocean navy. Finally, go to a national healthcare program and save about $1.0 trillion a year. Now I'm talking about real money.

Lyle:

How are you so sure that we don't need to have a 'two war' military? That is the sort of thinking that caused us to find ourselves woefully unprepared for war in the months following the attack on Pearl Harbor?

ah yes Lyle, cut the military and expand entitlements.

Let's just ignore the US Constitution completely and not provide a secure nation (We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ...provide for the common defence, ...). Instead, lets just take money from the achievers and spread it out among the masses. TOTAL SOCIALIST ATTITUDE!!!

Or let's take the other common angle you like to chant "tax the rich". I can't afford to lose any more money. No, I am not rich, but I do know my boss has trimmed business costs as much as he can. If you force him to pay more in taxes, that money is going to come out of MY pocket, as well as every other employee in the company. Unlike the government, he can't just print up money to pay us.

The solution is to trim spending costs, not increase them. Social Security is slowly going bankrupt. Why should we trust the government to run our health care any better?

You go Dave! Most of the self righteous who respond to this blog have no hearts, only wallets.

David:

Is that truly a fair assessment of the SS and Medicare reforms being proposed by Ryan et al? The republicans really aren't pushing 'wheelchair granny' off the cliff...

Everyone seems to agree that the current systems are not sustainable. The most common 'solution' for SS is to raise eligibility age. The most common 'solution' for Medicare is to ignore the problem and attack those who dare to address it. Fact is, that the 'solutions' that have been proposed in the past aren't going to work. We need to come up with real solutions for the shortfalls in these programs if we are going to continue to take care of our elders...

I did not garner Grandpa was a leech. So I don't know what you read! Seems to me Jason was the leech!
The fact of the matter is Ryan's plan calls for NO CHANGE for those over 55! If Grandpa served in Korea, my guess is he is 80+. So based on your plan he's 5+ years overdue!
Jason's story was nice and touching but he make sit sound like Grandpa is getting screwed by the system. I don't think so. Grandpa is doing fine except for whatever ails him. To that I say MORE BEER!

David. You post with about as much inaccurate information as Jason. Just shoot from the hip and let the emotion guide your way. What does the world look like when you stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la la la ?

@The Donny Show....It isn't a ponzi scheme so don't make such a claim, it's misleading.

Since the SSA would implode if new members did not continue to sign up, of course it’s a Ponzi scheme. It generates no profit or cash flow of its own and is not funded except by future members or increased taxation of existing members. Social Security is actually WORSE than a Ponzi scheme. Nobody forces you to join a Ponzi scheme.
.

It's all good, jim. He earns them and he wants them. If they die down he'll pop back in with a comment of his own to attempt to get the ball rolling again.

It's the adult baby version of fake crying.

@Johnny Blade & Ma Kettle...What don't you understand about taxation? It is the dues we pay to be a part of society. Some have to pay more than others, yet there are some that don't pay at all. Without placing a value judgment on it, it is just the way it is. Fortunately in a democratic republican society with the power of the vote, we have a say in what is collected and how it is disbursed. Ponzi scheme no, taxation yes. You are misapplying one concept for another. If you don't like the system, then find a place where you won't be taxed.

Just because you say it isnt a Ponzi Scheme doesn't make it so, are you the arbiter of the lexicon? Please post your impressive CV for all of us to see so you can convince us. a classic Ponzi scheme is less dangerous than Social Security: It relies on fooling people into voluntarily handing over their money. Once the fraud is detected, the danger is eliminated. In contrast, American workers have no choice but to "contribute" to Social Security, whether they like the deal or not.

@Ma Kettle...Time for you to do more research. SS didn't start out as a pay as you go system and it was to build up a cash reserve. It is a forced savings program and completely legal under our constitution. There is no fraud involved as in a Ponzi Scheme and ultimately it is controlled by us the voter. As far as showing my CV, I'll mine as long as you use your real name and post yours. I have multiple degrees from several universities in various social sciences and philosophy.

Completly leagal under the constitution .. I don't think so .. how?? Just like the income tax and the central bank .. Illegal under the constitution .. and immoral

@Johnny Blade...16th amendment to the constitution

The Donny Show...It is not fraudulent and it is taxes.

@The Anti-Alinsky....I am sorry, but I don't think you have the necessary background to continue the discussion. The problem with "strict constitutionalists" is that, like you, they discount two centuries of precedent. Quoting you directly: "I can tell you where it doesn't: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The last of the clause states to the people. Through our elected representatives we are able to evoke legislation including the institution of social contracts, having the authority of law. For example the 2nd amendment doesn't prohibit or dictate what constitutes "arms", but we as a society have. Why are we able to do this since the constitution doesn't directly address this? It is simply that we have deemed what is necessary and sufficient to meet the constitution and the ownership of fully automatic firearms is prohibited since it exceeds need.

You can label me a "crackpot" if you wish, but that doesn't change the relevancy and accuracy of my arguments.

Is that how you are backing out of a discussion that you can't answer? Slap an unqualified label on your opponent and hope they can't respond? Sorry, but short of you providing your JD sheepskin, I think I am every bit as qualified as you are!!!

To quote your response "The last of the clause states to the people. Through our elected representatives..." Wrong. Our elected representatives you refer to ARE the United States, the collections of the states as a whole. "The people" is not some abstract concept intended for Socialist and Marxist to try and create some sort of legitimacy. "The people" are us as individuals.

The framers of the US Constitution never intended for the Federal government to be all powerful. Just powerful enough to do the job it was being created for. James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #45:
"...The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite..." (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_45.html)

We as a society do not dictate how the Constitution is to be interpreted. We have a Supreme Court that does it's best to make that decision. The primary source is the Constitution, but it researches other writings, such as the above mentioned Federalist papers to help make that decision.

As a ten year old, I remember doing a report on President John Tyler and his ascendency to the office of the President of the United States. When William Henry Harrison died, no-one seemed to know exactly what Tyler's role was to be. Article 2 Section 6 of the US Constitution reads:
"In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President,..."

So what exactly does "the Same" mean? The big argument was whether Tyler was the President or "Acting-President". While the powers and duties clause may have explained the job well enough, there is a certain air of illegitimacy associated with the Acting-President".

Yes, our lexicon has changed over the last 225 years, which is why we need a learned group to research the purpose and intent of the Constitution when it comes to specific laws. NOWHERE does the US Constitution give Congress the power to enact social contracts!!!

No, I decided I will not label you a crackpot. Just a well meaning misguided individual that has yet to realize the folly of the world he is trying to create!

@The Anti-Alinsky....You need to look up and understand the definition of social contracts. The Federalist Papers are not the final word on intent, but only the arguments for ratifying the constitution. Also, over time power has passed from the states to the federal government creating the preeminence of federal law over the states. The US Civil War was the vehicle for such change.

No argument about the Civil War's effect on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, But does that make it right. When each state entered into the union, they agreed to the shared powers with the Federal government as detailed in the Constitution. Now you are saying it's OK for the feds to ignore the Constitution in order to enact social contracts. The problem is where will it end? You labelled me as a "strict constitutionalist", but having upheld my end of the bargain, I expect the Government of the United States to uphold it's end.

By the way, I never said the Federalist Papers were the final word on intent, just that they are one of the sources used!

And I might add, we don't need to waste money of bad programs and projects.

Case in point, Tom Barrett's silly trolley idea.

@The Anti-Alinsky...The nation entered into a social contract to provide social security and medicare. They further entered into social contracts to the poor with medicaide, AFDC and food stamps. The idea that we have to cut those programs because the boomers are becoming eligible is a breach of that contract. In my case I paid into social security for close to fifty years and medicare for the last forty five years. When I entered the workforce, there were eight people paying in to support one recipient. Now it is coming down to where there are only three and soon will be two. It is a blip in the demographics that is causing the problem. In 1984 Reagan and the Congress increased the payroll tax to keep the program solvent through the baby boomers. After the boomers are gone the system will again begin building an excess. The system has worked and kept poverty for the elderly low. Now, without thinking people are saying that Ryan isn't going to throw granny under the bus because it won't impact anyone under the age of 55. However, it is highly unlikely that people younger than 55 are going to be able to save enough to offset the loss. Also, the idea of going to a variable benefit program is ludicrous. Look how well 401 (k)s have worked out. In addition, with the medical voucher program how are you going to control the double digit inflation rate of healthcare services. I think people better try to come up with a better solution than Ryan's libertarian pipe dream.

Lyle, I have no problem with senior collecting Social Security and Medicare. We have all been paying into it for years. My issue is that I, like many others, feel that the federal government has no power to create or enforce either program. Show me where in the United States Constitution it has that power!

Lets look at your "social contract". A contract is an agreement between two entities for an exchange of goods or services. What is contractual about Social Security or Medicare? Looking back to when Social Security was first enacted, this would have been time we should have had a national referendum. However, we've had it for 75 years and to just yank it would immoral to all those that paid into it. But with something like Paul Ryan's plan could save and fix it for future generations. Now granted I don't have to take Social Security payments, but I have been forced to pay in without any say so. Ryan's plan wouldn't just cut Social Security off, but phased into private accounts over time.

Again, looking at contracts, what is contractual about AFDC, Medicare and food stamps? We provide these programs to the poor in exchange for ???? I'm not saying we shouldn't help the poor, but quit calling it a social contract and call it what it is, a hand-out!

@The Anti-Alinsky...The social contracts were formed by our elected representatives.

Yes Lyle, but where in the Constitution does it give them that specific authority?

In any organization, the charter specifies what power the governing body has. For the President and Congress that charter is the United States Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it give them that specific authority?

@The Anti-Alinsky....What are referring to? If it is social contracts that is a philosophical principle from the Age of Enlightenment. But you know as well as I do that if something is not clearly called out in the constitution that it neither prohibits or compels action. that is interpreted by the Supreme Court.

I see Lyle, as soon as I ask for the governing source of your "social contract", your face goes blank and your mind goes numb.

I will say it again, in any organization, the charter specifies the powers (I should add and limitations) of the governing entity. In Wisconsin it is the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin. For the entire nation, it is the United States Constitution. The US Constitution specifies the power and limitations of the President, House of Representatives, Senate and Supreme Court. For example, the President does not the authority to raise funds. That power is vested in Congress. The President can only approve or veto the funding. Barack Hussein Obama can not just go out and order an increase in personal income taxes. On a more local level, municipalities do not have the authority to run school districts. That power is given to the local School Boards.

So, back to my question, where in the United States Constitution does it give Congress and the President the authority to enter into social contracts? In a previous post you thought gutting the military would provide funds, but the national defense is mentioned, while socialistic programs are not.
(Preamble: "We the People of the United States ... provide for the common defence...")
(Article 1 section 8: "The Congress shall have Power ... to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence...")
(Article 2 section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief ...")

@The Anti-Alinsky...The US Constitution was written as a loose framework of rights, limitations and principles. Those who drafted and signed the constitution purposely wrote it in this manner understanding it to be a flexible social contract. Although the Supreme Court of the US is vague as to their powers and how to exercise them, John Marshall, the first Chief Justice, established the power of the Judicial System and put forth that only the USSC could determine constitutionality. Over time the constitution has been stretched, twisted and changed to adapt to meet changing societal demands. Therefore, as a foundation document it gives the authority for our elected representatives to enter into societal social contracts to benefit the whole of society.

Nothing disturbs me more than waste in government. I don't care what program it is, entitlement or other, and find that the funds have been misused. We have been duped out of billions by medicare providers, all private providers; yet we hold fast to private medical care. Why isn't there this problem with fraud in National Health Service providers? Private is not always good or not always bad, but private has more opportunity to commit fraud. J.P. Morgan sold the Federal Government during the Civil War 3000 known defective rifles. He made huge profits and was never prosecuted for his fraud. He grew to immense wealth by any means possible. Is this the way that assures a good and stable society?

"The US Constitution was written as a loose framework of rights, limitations and principles..."
There is nothing "loose" about the framework of the United States Constitution. If that were so government could time and again stifle our first amendment rights. Did you see any of that happening last year during the Capital protests? Not at all.

The United States Constitution is our HIGHEST LAW!!! Each state has agreed to that as it entered the union. Why does the Supreme Court, whose only authority is the Constitution, the final authority when a law is passed? Why does the President, every member of Congress, and every member of the military SWEAR to uphold it? I would like to see you explain to them the "looseness" of the Constitution!

So again I ask (for the third and final time before I label you a crackpot), where in the United States Constitution does it give the Federal Government the right to implement social contracts or programs?

I can tell you where it doesn't:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

@Ma Kettle....I am surprised that you would show such an emotive response. What you are saying is if I put so much money in my savings account and let it build over time and the bank is using my money all that time, then when I go to get it out they say sorry, we can't pay you; that is not only fraud but it's immoral and illegal. There is no difference between paying into SS and Medicare and the bank example.

What you are really saying is that even though I owe the money, I'm not going to pay. Now who is really the selfish one? Besides, unlike the propaganda coming out of the right, we can afford it.

Or more to the point, if I purchase an annuity and make all the required payments (with the fund administrators taking their management fees for forty years, I would not be satisfied if when it came time to take the income, my company said, "Oh, we had to build a new corporate center last year and give one of our CEOs a golden parachute. We can only pay you half of what you contracted for."

Besides that, though, I think Alfred has a new screen name.

Lyle and Randy, what happens to those responsible for losing that money from the bank or business. They go to jail.

What happens when the same situation occurs in the federal government?

NOTHING!!!

@Randy and Lyle..... Is a social contract a legal contract? You both indicate this in your respective examples of an 'Annuity' and a 'Bank Deposit'.

@Jay Sykes....The social contract or political contract only carries the same authority, rights and privileges when it becomes a concrete signed agreement carrying the weight of law. The Preamble of the US Constitution is a social (political) contract outlining the mission and responsibility of the government to the governed, when the governed cede certain rights to the government. From this foundation of principles all subsequent articles follow, which become our basis of law. Where conflict occurs is when within the same founding principles are in conflict. In the case of the Preamble the classic conflict occurs between the principle of general welfare and the principle of freedom. In general, to promote the general welfare means that individual freedoms must be abridged. This is a philosophical conflict between the sovereign community and the sovereign individual. The political right usually supports the sovereign individual principle and the political left the sovereign community. I hope I was able to shed a little more light on this basic issue. Thanks for asking.

Wow Lyle. That is the best response you have written. It also is quite a turn around from earlier when you claimed the US Constitution was a loose framework.

However, let's not lose sight of the fact that the term "general welfare" refers to the country as a whole. In a temporary situation, such as WWI or WWII, citizen's were needed to sacrifice certain things in order to win the war. They were meant to be limited in time and were applied to a greater purpose, namely to win a war against an enemy that threatened our security.

"General welfare" was not meant to be a mandate to benefit only certain individuals. And it certainly was not meant to bankrupt future generations of Americans.

How does destroying the future of my children and grand-children contribute to "the general welfare"?

@Dan B...What kind of HUD contractor? All I can say is that even with Medicare, they have a Part B and Part D copay. You need to get up to speed on the actual conditions and situations, not just ultra right wing hyperbole.

Lyle you need to read Ryans plan and maybe you will understand that he is looking out for ALL of us not the rich or the poor but all of us.

I remodeled the HUD properties all over the state and seen first hand how people (if you want to call them that) would rather sit on the couch and collect their checks than even work for cash cleaning up the site. 3 generations of kids in the same house having kids so they get more money. It's all GIVEN with no effort on their part.
None have ever contributed to society. Lyleand Jason that is you voter base that must make you proud!

@Dan B...Honestly, I have read Ryan's plans and it reads like an assigned project from an MBA program. To understand Ryan and his philosophical foundation, one only has to look to his mentors and the forced reading he places on his staff. He is a committed disciple of Ayn Rand and his mentors have been Jack Kemp and William Bennett. That being aside, to judge the whole conditions of the impoverished based on your limited personal experience is not only faulty in its application but is disingenuous, Not all people living in poverty can be described as you have done, but only a minority. It's like you seeing a red truck and then making the assumption that all trucks must be red.

The problem of poverty is highly complex and can't be associated with a moral failing and a determination of the deserving poor verses the undeserving poor. Poverty is a symptom of a failed economic system. The higher the number of the impoverished is an indication of economic failure. Not all people truly start out in the same place and as such not all have equal opportunity for social upward mobility. The people you described are part of the permanent underclass and live in a constant survival mode. Hence, those chronically dependent on charity, government aid and the underground economy. I think I remember a great religious teacher saying "judge not least ye be judged".

Not to mention that the working class marginal people can end up in actual poverty once they can no longer work, since low wages and high costs of living leave little opportunity to save for anything, much less retirement. Low wages mean a lower Social Security benefit, and Ryan's voucher plan will eat up seniors' savings at a faster rate once they have to make up the difference between the voucher and their 'free-market' health insurance costs.

Dan, these are people who didn't sit on the couch and wait for a handout. They're people who worked for low wages and made other people rich.

Lyle, the problem with poverty is actually fairly simple. There are many people, given the opportunity, that would rather have the short term gratification of sitting at home watching tv than get a decent paying job or improve their skill set in order to get a decent paying job.

We pay very well at our company, but I have had one person I know of that has quite so he could collect unemployment (about half what we pay). It was on the pretense to spend time to improve his skill set, but he spent the entire time "decompressing and recharging his batteries". I had three others I suspected of doing the same thing. Unfortunately, today's unemployment office still pays people that don't even bother to show up for work.

We need to get people off their a$$e$ and back to work. There are thousands of jobs listed on the Wisconsin Jobs Network. There are thousands more listed on employment sites like Monster.com. Jobs are there, we just need people to get out and do them, not sit at home living off the rest of us!

@The Anti-Alinsky...Of the example you used of a coworker quitting so they could sit on their posterior and watch TV while drawing unemployment. I have only one question: How can someone quit a job and draw unemployment? It was my understanding that UI was only available to someone who had been involuntarily been laid off.

Not any more Lyle. I fought it and lost. I flat out told the adjudicator that he shouldn't get unemployment since we had work for him, but we lost anyways.

Not right away. Currently, those over the age of 55 are 'safe'. But I'm realistic, and I wonder just how long people under the cutoff age will be content to support us 'greedy old buzzards' in our retirement. I'm already hearing rumblings to that effect from the Gen X-ers, never minding that we Boomers paid double for most of our working lives and we supported the generations before us.

I give it about ten years and then we'll see a push to 'reform' SSI and Medicare for people of my age. Because memories are very short.

The other unfortunate effect of a Ryan plan would be that I know my son and grandson will need every penny I can leave to them in order to have savings for their retirement. I'll continue to be miserly at a time when I could have maybe eased up a little. Multiply me manyfold, and there will be a downward force on the economy.

Randy, why would your son and grandson need every penny you have to give them under the Ryan plan. Facts please, not more rhetoric!

Totally agree. Listen to the Anti-(Saul)Alinsky. He knows better.
I'm kinda suprised $$ is agreeing with me.

"Totally agree. Listen to the Anti-(Saul)Alinsky. He knows better.
I'm kinda suprised $$ is agreeing with me."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

Wasted sarcasm on you Saul. You don't get it do you?

No, I'm just laughing at the way you screwed up your poor attempt at trying to belittle me.

@The Anti-Alinsky....It would appear that you and I are speaking two separate languages. I'm not sure that we can find a common point of reference. I'm not being critical, but do you have any background in philosophy and the social sciences? I feel that we are also running up against semantics.

Your reference to Lenin misses the mark altogether. Although communism is a radical form of socialism, it clearly doesn't work, especially in large diverse populations. Any workable social system requires the cooperation between all parties sharing a foundation of values, folkways, ethics and morals. This is dependent on a series of small agreements and reciprocity. Social contracts if you will, on a small scale. As the size of the group grows, then those contracts become concrete by being written and formally agreed to. The US and States' constitutions are formal social contracts. According to the Preamble to the Constitution, quoting Wikipedia: "This is an itemized social contract of democratic philosophy. It details how the more perfect union was to be carried out between the national government and the people. The people are to be provided (a) justice, (b) civil peace, (c) common defense, (d) those things of a general welfare that they could not provide themselves, and (e) freedom. A government of "liberty and union, now and forever", unfolds when “We” begin and establish this Constitution.[a][22] Much of what is legislated is done under the social welfare.

Well Lyle, I am speaking English, what language do you think you are speaking?

The reference to Lenin was to point out that by redefining a concept, you can justify anything you want. For example, despite losing big in the national elections of 1917, Lenin justified the October Revolution by redefining "Will of the People" as what the people would really want if they were educated enough and smart enough to make that decision.

In the same way you redefine the foundations of a social contract to limit it simply to representatives that do not always have their constituents best interests in mind. The best example I can think of is Obamacare. Despite massive opposition, the Senate and House passed this terrible piece of legislation. The Democrats realized that Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was the only bill they would be able to pass, and rammed it through simply to get it over with. This bill failed to satisfy ANYONE! Even the few Socialist I know think it's a piece of crap and will only cause more problems. While I don't want to be voting on every piece of legislation, I think something that affects the country that much should have a form of national referendum attached to it.

Incidentally, the old Soviet Union was a in fact a Socialist state with a Communist philosophy. Communism see's itself as an evolutionary mechanism, guiding a state from Capitalism to Socialism to a truly Communist state (short version, it's a lot more involved than that). The Soviet Union failed the same way all other Socialistic entities have failed, they can't provide the proper incentive for a state to grow and thrive.

That social contract you keep referring needs to have some sort of legitimate consent attached to it. In the case of the US Constitution, all states ratified it and made it valid. Where was the consent for Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare? Again, these pieces of legislation should have been put forth in a national referendum (ie, amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states) versus representatives whose intents are often suspect.

@Anti-Alinsky...Communism served human kind well during the period of our hunter-gatherer period. Modern communism as defined by Marx and Engels is an economic model and system that has proven to be unworkable. You are incorrect that all socialist systems eventually fail. In general, social democracies work very well and the most successful current systems are social democracies.

Requiring a public referendum to pass significant legislation is not necessary. I agree that Affordable Health Care Act is not a good piece of legislation and I didn't support its passage at the time. It does not go far enough in establishing a national healthcare service.

Lyle, you mean Social Democracies like Greece and Spain?

By public referendum I meant passing an Amendment that allows the Federal Government to run health care. The reason I suggest it - because I know it would fail. Even on the extremely off-chance it would pass, at least it would be a true mandate as directed by the people through the states.

@Nuitari...The truth is if we adopt Ryan's plan, when you reach Jason's grandpa's age and health; you'll be the one who is pushed off the cliff.

I honestly think that folks like Nuitari actually and incredibly believe that, like Paul Ryan, his proposed program and budget cuts would not impact them. Unless I'm much mistaken, Nuitari and others here who support Paul Ryan and his "plan" are not elected officials with sweet pension and healthcare plans funded by taxpayers waiting for them (as is Ryan). By the time it is realized (on the wagon heading for the glue factory if one appreciates Orwellian reference) it will be far, far too late.