I actually do favor it.
Even the writers of helvering vs Davis and the current set of liberals on the bench would claim that they still believe in finite enumerated powers.
but in practice we know that they will take the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause and use them to justify anything Congress proposes that has anything to do with private citizens moving their money around.
But I also favor social Security. 
If we could turn back time, it would have been better for FDR to have called for amending the Constitution to get the programs he was looking for. At least that way the document would make more sense vis our modern government.  He had like 3/4 of each house of Congress he just wasn't patient apparently.
I don't know what the prospects were at the level of the state legislatures, but if they were the ones actually stopping the show, shame on them. 
Back then most state legislatures did not operate on a one-person one-vote basis.

Pick one...  

1.) Social security is the basic definition of tyranny.  It fundamentally exceeds the enumerated powers of the constitution to impose an old age insurance scheme from the relics of 19th century German State theory to save hundreds of millions of people from participating in the safest most advanced financial system in the history of all mankind.  Every American that has contributed a single penny to this farce should get a monthly note of apology from the United States Treasury.  

2.) The only reason that the system continues is because a functional majority of the country is financially illiterate.  60% of the country actually believes that the system includes a private account with real money.  Even more than that think that its some kind of retirement program.  IT's not.  From an actuarial standpoint, old age insurance is only for those that have worked so long that their age in and of itself prevents them from the possibility of economic endeavor, not a planned break from work.  The system was designed so that only 5% would ever draw from it, at current rates 95% will eventually draw from the system.  It was designed based on a ratio of 1 beneficiary to 16 contributors, that ratio has fallen to 3 to 1 and headed steeply for 2 to 1.  

3.) The structure of payroll taxes has incalculable negative impacts not only on employers hiring, but otherwise qualified entrepreneurial people staying in the employment market instead of becoming Self Employed or small business owners because of the sticker shock of self employment taxes.  

4.) I still don't understand how progressive ideas can be so immune to even the most basic scrutiny.  Never mind the incestuous relationship between progressives of that time and the emerging fascist dictatorships in Europe (Including but not limited to the love affair between FDR and Mussalini) Nevermind the fact that its passage was traded for anti-lynching legislation, nevermind that it may very well be the most regressive form of taxation in the entire 72k of the federal tax code.  BASIC MATH PROVES that the returns of participation in the free market dwarf social security payments.  And the cost of all that lost wealth is a one way ticket to insolvency because the actuarial structure of OLD AGE INSURNACE doesn't jive with the political reality of entitlement reform.  

But don't worry folks.  These are the same people that are taking over your Healthcare.  Don't worry about dying in a waiting line, don't worry about poor quality of care, don't worry about shortages of drugs and medical supplies, at some point someone had a show vote to take your right to private economic transactions away so that makes it okay!  #NOTADEMOCRACY

Wow that's a lot.  
I don't feel like I have to "pick one".  The Congress at the time had the votes to amend the Constitution for this.  And the state legislatures were largely illegitimate because many of them still used district boundaries from the early 1800s.  It's a shame they didn't actually add payment of insurance benefits to the enumerated powers, but, we can't uncrack that egg. Fortunately the negative statements in the constitution are still there.  Those are the ones we still need to fight for: no searches without warrants, trial by jury, no infringing on the free press, etc.
As for the other stuff, that's a lot to bite off.  If you want a response my brain might process better if yoy go bit by bit.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Natural rights are essential to limited government. 2/3rds vote don't legitimize rape.

---

Natural rights are essential to limited government.  2/3rds vote don't legitimize rape.

Fair enough.  
I mean I agree that there is such a thing as natural law and that it does say things like "we should punish rapists."
I'm not sure what it says about a government running old age insurance.  You did correctly point out that people are living longer and putting real strain on the system, but that doesn't mean the entire idea was ethically wrong, just that it's implementation was imperfect.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Natural rights are essential to limited government.  2/3rds vote don't legitimize rape.

Fair enough.  
I mean I agree that there is such a thing as natural law and that it does say things like "we should punish rapists."
I'm not sure what it says about a government running old age insurance.  You did correctly point out that people are living longer and putting real strain on the system, but that doesn't mean the entire idea was ethically wrong, just that it's implementation was imperfect.

There's a generally accepted right to not be raped. There's not a generally accepted right to rely on the public coffers to supplement your retirement fund.

---

Fair enough.  
I mean I agree that there is such a thing as natural law and that it does say things like "we should punish rapists."
I'm not sure what it says about a government running old age insurance.  You did correctly point out that people are living longer and putting real strain on the system, but that doesn't mean the entire idea was ethically wrong, just that it's implementation was imperfect.

There's a generally accepted right to not be raped. There's not a generally accepted right to rely on the public coffers to supplement your retirement fund.

But there isn't a natural law right to *not* participate in a government program, unless that program conflicts with your religion.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Consent of the governed = enumerated powers = legitimate taxing authority. You yourself have admitted that the program violates that contract.

As for better IMPLIMENTATION DO u understand what ur saying? Government systems by definition are less efficient allocating resources than private systems. That's especially true of financial systems. The program was passed in response to a financial calamity created by the state and less than a century later is going to pull off the magic trick of creating another financial crisis while at the same time providing kiss poor returns to beneficiaries.

Comparing the history of Social Security to the innovation in the private financial markets for insurance open end investment and even annuities to a certain degree is decisive indisputable evidence that progressivism/statism fails and the state should mind it's own @$%/ business.

---

There's a generally accepted right to not be raped. There's not a generally accepted right to rely on the public coffers to supplement your retirement fund.

But there isn't a natural law right to *not* participate in a government program, unless that program conflicts with your religion.

Sure there is. It's called "free will."

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

There's a generally accepted right to not be raped. There's not a generally accepted right to rely on the public coffers to supplement your retirement fund.

But there isn't a natural law right to *not* participate in a government program, unless that program conflicts with your religion.

Lol, so government is all powerful then. More nonsense.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

There's a generally accepted right to not be raped. There's not a generally accepted right to rely on the public coffers to supplement your retirement fund.

But there isn't a natural law right to *not* participate in a government program, unless that program conflicts with your religion.

Shouldn't the burden be on the affirmative in that situation? Shouldn't there be an enumerated right for a government to compel you to participate in a certain program, rather than an assumed right of a government to create programs and compel participation in them? FDR did some great things for this country during WWII, but during the Great Depression his MO was to attack the 10th Amendment at every turn by abusing the elastic clause. Social Security was a prime example of that.

---

But there isn't a natural law right to *not* participate in a government program, unless that program conflicts with your religion.

Shouldn't the burden be on the affirmative in that situation? Shouldn't there be an enumerated right for a government to compel you to participate in a certain program, rather than an assumed right of a government to create programs and compel participation in them? FDR did some great things for this country during WWII, but during the Great Depression his MO was to attack the 10th Amendment at every turn by abusing the elastic clause. Social Security was a prime example of that.

If the government says you must then you should shut up and sing. It's the American Way after all.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

But there isn't a natural law right to *not* participate in a government program, unless that program conflicts with your religion.

Shouldn't the burden be on the affirmative in that situation? Shouldn't there be an enumerated right for a government to compel you to participate in a certain program, rather than an assumed right of a government to create programs and compel participation in them? FDR did some great things for this country during WWII, but during the Great Depression his MO was to attack the 10th Amendment at every turn by abusing the elastic clause. Social Security was a prime example of that.

Yes, this is exactly why earlier I said that in a better world FDR's allies would have amended the Constitution for this.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Shouldn't the burden be on the affirmative in that situation? Shouldn't there be an enumerated right for a government to compel you to participate in a certain program, rather than an assumed right of a government to create programs and compel participation in them? FDR did some great things for this country during WWII, but during the Great Depression his MO was to attack the 10th Amendment at every turn by abusing the elastic clause. Social Security was a prime example of that.

Yes, this is exactly why earlier I said that in a better world FDR's allies would have amended the Constitution for this.

In a better world FDR would've been stopped.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes, this is exactly why earlier I said that in a better world FDR's allies would have amended the Constitution for this.

In a better world FDR would've been stopped.

Maybe.  Social Security can't be taken away now, as so many people have paid in that stopping it is harder than keeping it going.  But you can definitely argue that it didn't help end the Depression back then, and you can definitely argue that it's hurt productivity with its taxes and the inducement it offers to leave the labor market even if you're still able bodied.  But the same process of pressuring the Supreme Court justices to stretch the commerce clause also gave us minimum wage laws and 40 hour work weeks, which, in my opinion, have been almost entirely positive for us.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

In a better world FDR would've been stopped.

Maybe.  Social Security can't be taken away now, as so many people have paid in that stopping it is harder than keeping it going.  But you can definitely argue that it didn't help end the Depression back then, and you can definitely argue that it's hurt productivity with its taxes and the inducement it offers to leave the labor market even if you're still able bodied.  But the same process of pressuring the Supreme Court justices to stretch the commerce clause also gave us minimum wage laws and 40 hour work weeks, which, in my opinion, have been almost entirely positive for us.

You really believe that don't u?  

And into what exactly?

---

In a better world FDR would've been stopped.

Maybe.  Social Security can't be taken away now

Sure it can. Congress passes a law ending all funding towards it and removing the 12.4% tax levied on its behalf. The remaining funds are paid out as per the current rules until they're exhausted. Individual states are free to set up their own forms of Social Security or not. Done.

---

Maybe.  Social Security can't be taken away now, as so many people have paid in that stopping it is harder than keeping it going.  But you can definitely argue that it didn't help end the Depression back then, and you can definitely argue that it's hurt productivity with its taxes and the inducement it offers to leave the labor market even if you're still able bodied.  But the same process of pressuring the Supreme Court justices to stretch the commerce clause also gave us minimum wage laws and 40 hour work weeks, which, in my opinion, have been almost entirely positive for us.

You really believe that don't u?  

And into what exactly?

I do believe it.  But I don't understand your question.

---

Maybe.  Social Security can't be taken away now

Sure it can. Congress passes a law ending all funding towards it and removing the 12.4% tax levied on its behalf. The remaining funds are paid out as per the current rules until they're exhausted. Individual states are free to set up their own forms of Social Security or not. Done.

The date of exhaustion would only be two years out, at most.  A whole cohort of people would end up contributing their entire working life minus two years and leave with nothing.  That's not easy.  Easy to laugh at, sure.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Regarding Social Security, it should have been privatized a long time ago... even prior to the President George W. Bush administration talking about it.  Take a look at how much you have paid into it over the course of 1 year and imagine how much that would be worth even at a low interest rate.  Multiply that over the course of your working career and you end up with a much higher figure.  The bottom line is, people, not the government should be responsible for saving for their own retirement.

Minimum wage and maximum working hour laws should be done away with and let the free market sort it out.  Government has no business telling private businesses what to do or how much to pay.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Regarding Social Security, it should have been privatized a long time ago... even prior to the President George W. Bush administration talking about it.  Take a look at how much you have paid into it over the course of 1 year and imagine how much that would be worth even at a low interest rate.  Multiply that over the course of your working career and you end up with a much higher figure.  The bottom line is, people, not the government should be responsible for saving for their own retirement.

Minimum wage and maximum working hour laws should be done away with and let the free market sort it out.  Government has no business telling private businesses what to do or how much to pay.

It can't be privatized for basically the same reason.
Today's taxes fund today's retirees. its operating only about a year ahead of its expenses. You're talkin about it suddenly operating 20 30 40 years ahead of its expenses. It would need an enormous one-time cash infusion to make the transition. They could try to do it with quantitative easing, but that could turn into a snake eating its own tail while really messing up the bond market.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'd hit it.

---

I'd hit it.

So deep something something Pull me out something something King of England something else.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato