Okay, I did not get to see the speech first hand as I had my own civic duty tonight; Hamburg City Council meeting. I did read the speech and here are my likes and dislikes:
"It's no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that's a good thing. That's what a robust democracy demands. That's what helps set us apart as a nation." – I agree. We can have and must have "contentious" debate on the topics that divide us ideologically. Then we need to find a middle ground. Hopefully pundits on both sides of the aisle listened to this as they are the polarizing group.
"At stake right now is not who wins the next election – after all, we just had an election." – Funny, I recall the recently elected President saying that "elections have consequences." Those words spoke by Obama was meant to be a poke in the eye of Republicans and fueled partisan politics.
"Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up." – True but this is not due to his Stimulus Package; rather it's due to companies shedding jobs, inventories and other cost cutting measures. Too bad the Democratic led Congress didn't take note by increasing the National Debt by more than $3 Trillion.
"What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny." – Bingo! The idea was a nation of a limited Central government and the empowerment of States. The trouble is that we have seen the power of the Central government increase while State Rights have been eroded. The latest is the Health Care Mandate.
"Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation" – Exactly! So why did we have TARP and the GM Bailout? I understand that not all of this was implemented by Obama but he has not shied away from trying to turn TARP into a slush fund.
"Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas." – I like this idea. President Obama can start by overturning President Carter's ban on reusing spent nuclear rods as the technology has improved to the point that allows France to reuse their spent rods thus reducing nuclear waste.
"That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities……Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don't meet this test….'If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we'll show you the money.'" – I agree here. The trouble is the teachers Unions. For a long time I thought teachers needed higher pay but after hearing about the benefits they get after retiring my view has changed. Message to Teachers: Do you want the money now or do you want the benefits later?
"Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. I know that debate will be difficult and take time. But tonight, let's agree to make that effort. And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who can staff our research labs, start new businesses, and further enrich this nation." – Sounds like Amnesty to me. We need to enforced our laws and apply the 14th Amendment as it was intended and anchor babies was not it.
"Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I'm proposing that we redouble these efforts." – Does this mean another Trillion Dollar Stimulus package? Wasn't the last one suppose to keep unemployment under 8%?
"So tonight, I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system" – I agree. I know he was talking more about Corporate taxes but it applies to all of us. It is time for a flat tax with no tax credits. We all use the roads, the waterways, and the security of our military so we all need to pay a share.
"To help businesses sell more products abroad, we set a goal of doubling our exports by 2014 – because the more we export, the more jobs we create at home." – I am all for this but let's not do it via another QE.
"Now, I've heard rumors that a few of you have some concerns about the new health care law. So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses." – Okay, if President Obama is serious then let's remove the mandate, create true tort reform, and allow the purchase of insurance across state lines.
"So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. This would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president." – Heard this one before, I believe last year he said that we reduce deficit by more than $200 billion over the next decade. We need to put all the sacred cows on the table. Cut military spending, education and entitlement programs.
"The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it – in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes." – Didn't Obama start the speech requesting civility and cooperation? Then why not implement the Fiscal Commission's suggestions? I don't agree with them all either then again I am not asking for bipartisanship.
"And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply cannot afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans." – Agreed. If we are to truly take care of the deficit we all need to pitch in. Scrap the current tax code and replace it with a flat tax that has not tax credits. Although we did cut SSN withholding by 2% for 2011.
"In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code. This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them." – AGREED!!! Flat Tax with no tax credits. Done!
"In the coming year, we will also work to rebuild people's faith in the institution of government. Because you deserve to know exactly how and where your tax dollars are being spent, you will be able to go to a website and get that information for the very first time in history. Because you deserve to know when your elected officials are meeting with lobbyists, I ask Congress to do what the White House has already done: put that information online. And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren't larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: if a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it." – Didn't President Obama say that all bills passed would be posted online for at least five days before he'd sign them into law? Plus, didn't he say that he would sign any bill that wasn't paid for? He broke both of those within days of saying it. Why are we to believe he will veto a bill that has earmarks within it?
Well that is my take on the speech. Now it's time to listen to the pundits!!!
Overall, I'm impressed with how much you agreed with, but I had a couple points I wanted to challenge you on.
ReplyDelete"The idea was a nation of a limited Central government and the empowerment of States."
Alexander Hamilton would vehemently disagree with you and as the author of the Federalist papers and co-author of the constitution his opinions mean quite a bit. In fact, the federalist papers are the single greatest source for constitutional interpretation that the US has so his ideas on what this countries founding priciples were is critical to any discussion. And Hamilton believed in a strong central government, central bank, flexible constitution, etc. He was opposed by Jefferson, who's ideology you quote above. It's interesting that you, and ALL GOP pundits seem to exclude anything of Hamilton's ideologies in your discussions of the constitution.
Why exactly do you choose to exclude him? Because you disagree with him or because you discount his contributions? Or is it just that his opinions don't support your argument?
"Sounds like Amnesty to me. We need to enforced our laws and apply the 14th Amendment as it was intended and anchor babies was not it."
So is it ok if we come to Hamburg and take back your subsidies to pay for this? Because I'm not interested in paying for deportation just to please all of you. How about we be pragmatic and admit we can't deport them which means amnesty (in whatever verbiage you choose) is part of the solution.
Ideological purity is not going to solve this - pragmatic cooperation is.
I get frustrated with the GOP and their ilk for one clear reason - Obama (whom I'm not a particular fan of) made HUGE moves to the center in order to offer the olive branch for cooperation.
And the GOP response isn't to do the same but to move further to the right with discussions of abolishing the EPA, etc.
I guess they forgot the simple law of physics - each action has an equal and opposing reaction. This movement to the right, moves the left further left. It only makes things more contentious.
The american people want compromise. We saw it during the lame duck congress - congressional approval ratings skyrocketted during that session and most americans want it to continue. We want to believe that our government works - that it gets things done.
Ideological purity will make things worse not better. I'm not saying you advocate this 100%, but on some issues you seem to tow the party line verbatim.
What does that accomplish other than gridlock?
Truman
ReplyDeleteI exclude Hamilton because I don't concur with his assessement of a strong central government nor an unchecked central bank
What subsidies are you talking about that Hamburg recieves?
Of course the GOP wants to move further to the Right because they know that if they allow Obama to play the middle, he will win re-election. I do agree that we need compromise in the debate on topics and in order for things to get done common ground needs to be found. Sometimes gridlock is good.
I am not sure why people get surprised when I agree with Obama as I have said, repeatedly, that while I am fiscally Conservative my social views are more liberal; perhaps Libertarian.
"I exclude Hamilton because I don't concur with his assessement of a strong central government nor an unchecked central bank"
ReplyDeleteSo you choose to exclude a critically important founding father who's thoughts on the principals that this country were founded on are the single most important set of documents around interpretation of the cosntitution in order to make a false statement about the principals upon which we were founded?
In other words you choose to omit critical facts in order to make your case seem more favorable - correct? Do you do the same in other areas of your life?
This is not only flawed from a logic perspective, it's intellectually dishonest in my opinion. But you're free to refute that fact if you choose.
As to re-election, the GOP movign further to the right won't win them re-election. It will end up winning Palin the nomination and that will guarantee Obama's 2nd term.
But hey, I'm happy to see the GOP move further right, because seeing Palin/Bachmann abjectly humiliated is incredibly amusing.
PS - I'm not saying I agree with hamilton's perspective. But to claim that the nation was founded on a principal of small central government and empowered states is 50% of the truth. And that's not a very honest position to debate from.
ReplyDeleteTruman
ReplyDeleteJust because I exclude Hamilton does not translate to total disregard. I acknowledge what he contributed and have read it as well. Perhaps the better explanation is that I disagree with Hamilton than explicitly exclude his thoughts or ideas. I hope this clears it up a bit more.
Perhaps my GOP move to the Right did not come across well. I agree that moving further to the Right will not help the GOP as that puts Obama more in the middle thus gives re-election to Obama on a silver plate. They have two choices though - either they paint him as a Progressive (which is best for GOP hopes) or the bring Obama to middle Right which allows the GOP to show Obama's controdictory stances and create an air of mistrust.
Viper,
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear here. You set forth a statement as fact that said the following:
"The idea was a nation of a limited Central government and the empowerment of States."
To say that you understand that Hamilton didn't agree with this and to make this statement means you are being intentionally dishonest in your statement of the "truth" as to the founding ideals of this country. It's 50% of the facts, which in any test of the truth is 100% false.
What you should say is that, as a Jeffersonian, you believe the idea SHOULD be one of limited central government with empowered states. But you state as FACT that the idea WAS that very thing when the facts are quite the opposite in that there were two very strong and VERY opposing ideas as to the founding of this nation.
This all begs a question though, do you understand WHY jefferson felt that a stong central government wasn't needed? Do you understand what his vision of this country was and why he intended it to be states driven and not federally?
The answer to those questions is critical to understanding how the country went the way it did and why we have the government we do.
"They have two choices though - either they paint him as a Progressive (which is best for GOP hopes) or the bring Obama to middle Right which allows the GOP to show Obama's controdictory stances and create an air of mistrust."
In the world of politics, the old sales addage 'you're only as good as your last quarter' is true IMO. Clinton proved that by triangulating himself into the center, forcing the GOP further right. (Just like Obama is today)
The way the GOP is trending, they'll end up far right of center and nominate Palin to their party ticket because the far right elite love her. But, she'll implode due to 2 years of soundbites and rather unintellectual statements that will crucify her in the press and public opinion and she'll lose badly.
Just my $0.02 though. I could be completely wrong.
While I believe Palin could do just as good a job as Obama has, America is not ready for an attractive female to lead our country let alone a female in general. I don't say this because of a sexist view rather just watching the viciousness that the pundits go after any female, especially attractive females, to question their abilities.
ReplyDelete"We need to enforce our laws and apply the 14th Amendment as it was intended and anchor babies was not it."
ReplyDeleteHow is the 14th Amedment not applied correctly?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Pretty clear cut...and has been since 1868.
So...by this quote, Viper it OK to change the Constitution? Well then in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, I decree that we change the 2nd amendment to NOT allow US citizens to have guns.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that the 14th Amendment is cut and dry. The problem is that we do not apply it correctly. Yes, it does call for all person born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US and the State wherein they reside.
In the case of "Anchor Babies" the part "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not applied. Just because one is born in the United States does not equate to them being subject to jurisdiction as their allegiance, their parental allegiance, may lie elsewhere. As is the case with illegal immigrants. Most illegal immigrants come from Latin America. Their "subject" of "jurisdiction" is their country of origin prior to stepping foot, illegally, into the United States. Thus their offspring are as well. For a child born by non-naturalized or US born parents lacks the capacity to become naturalized therefore cannot be considered a citizen of the United States or the State born in.
We are not changing the Constitution we are finally applying it accurately. As for the 2nd Amendment we already are infringing upon citizens rights by banning certain guns.
Sorry Viper...but you are incorrect. At least to what the Supreme Court has decided.
ReplyDeleteThe original intention of the first section of the 14th amendment was to create a legally binding resolution to apply the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Prior to that, there was no real ability the Federal Government had to force states to recognize the citizenship of newly freed slaves.
That was the ORIGINAL intention. However, the framers of the 14th amendment were not really concerned with "anchor babies".
In 1898, a Supreme Court precendent US Vs Wong Kim Ark decided that those who were born in the US to non-citizen parents were indeed citizens of the US. The majority stood that the 14th amendments "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was interpreted to mean everyone except those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.
This is pretty much what the framers of the amendment were saying when they wrote it.
So your comment, "We are not changing the Constitution we are finally applying it accurately." is incorrect and misleading. The application of the amendment was to define citizenship and the Supreme Court expanded that definition.
My apologies Viper... although we are the only industrialized nation to automatically grant citizenship to those who are born here to illegal parents, your assertion that the constitution is not accurately applied is wrong.
Please cite to me where the original intent of the 14th Amendment stated "1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory."
ReplyDeleteIn all the reading, some first hand accounts of those involved in writing the Amendment, I have done the Supreme Court got it wrong. True, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to give recently freed slaves, those subject already to jurisdiction of the United States, citizenship and end the squabbles between the States.
Besides, while the Supreme Court is the highest court it is not without its flaws and changing interpretation. We agree on the original intent but we disagree on interpretation.
And in doing so we are losing the logic of having the Supreme Court decide what gets applied to what constitutional amendment. I'm sorry, but there really is no "right or wrong" it was decided based upon what interpretation is seen fit. You don't HAVE to agree with it.
ReplyDeleteThe citation came from the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. That citation was the interpretation of what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in relation to those who were born in this country to illegal parents.
FWI-if you read US vs Wong Kim Ark, you'll find that his parents were not even ABLE to become US citizens due to Chinese exclusion laws during the turn of the century. If parents here can prove that at least an attempt is made to become citizens (like applying for citizenship) then that shows reasonable doubt that they are renouncing citizenship elsewhere.
Look Viper...many historians have written about the original intent of the 2nd amendment. Most of them agree that is real intention was to allow indiviuals to bare arms for the forming of militias. Obviously after much debate has risen about the topic, however, the Supreme Court has and always will side on the sense that the 2nd amendment allows citizens to carry firearms for any reason.
I find it very interesting how this whole 14th amendment came about. In my opinion, it is just a smokescreen to enrage and divide people about immigration. If we had a comprensive policy in place that allowed people to become citizens there would be no "anchor baby" problem in the first place.
Don't we have a comprehensive policy already? What is Chinese exclusion law? It is not a smoke screen to divide people on immigration. We have laws on the books that deals with illegal immigrants and we need to apply them. That includes denying them status due to "anchor babies".
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - How did this section of the Exclusion Law ever pass SCOTUS scrutiny?
ReplyDeleteThat hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.
No...we do not have a compresensive immigration policy. We have a patchwork of rules and regulations some of which are enforced and some of which do not.
ReplyDeletei.e. Cuban refugees. If any Cuban national steps onto US soil they are immediately considered US citizens.
The Chinese Exclusion Act: A United States federal law signed on May 8, 1882, which acted to allow the U.S. to suspend Chinese immigration. It was repealed in 1943.
Don't we give them political asylum? Thus allowing them to proceed within the process of becoming the a citizen in a streamlined manner.
ReplyDeleteI did find the Act and as I stated above, I am wondering how the section I posted passed the SCOTUS mustard.
"While I believe Palin could do just as good a job as Obama has, America is not ready for an attractive female to lead our country let alone a female in general."
ReplyDeleteYou are kidding right? She's a opportunistic, self-promoting, ego-centric narcissist who happens to be relatively attractive to the uneducated white male (typical GOP voter) who quit her job as governor just when the state was running into problems in order to cash in on her 15 minutes of fame.
How exactly is she qualified?
"I don't say this because of a sexist view rather just watching the viciousness that the pundits go after any female, especially attractive females, to question their abilities."
Oh you got me. you're absolutely right. The pundits and press go after poor Sarah because she's SOOOO beautiful, not because of her positions, statements and platform.
It won't have anything to do with the fact that she can't answer a question as simple as "what magazines/newspapers have you read to inform you of the current world events"? Or how about the fact that she can't seem to cite anything accurately about our history or constitution without writing it on her hands.
Yes, it's got nothing to do with that obviously. It's purely a sexist vendetta by jealous men/women. Obviously!
I notice you ignored my main point/question on WHY jefferson felt the way he did about the federal government and constitution and why we ended up the way we did. So I'll repeat it:
Do you understand WHY jefferson felt that a stong central government wasn't needed? Do you understand what his vision of this country was and why he intended it to be states driven and not federally?
Can you answer this?
"The problem is that we do not apply it correctly."
By your interpretation. The SCOTUS has NEVER overturned any decision based upon the precedent. What exactly do you know that all those constitutional scholars on the bench obviously don't? It's pretty grand hubris you have to presume you know better than men/women who are educated in the law and do nothing else but study the constitution. Do you really believe you know better?
Palin has been an Executive of a State before. I think Governors in general have more qualifications than Representatives and Senators in the fact they must lead the State and ensure a balanced budget. Granted we have good and bad Governors a we have witnessed here in Minnesota over the past several decades.
ReplyDeleteAs for Jefferson, the central government should be limited to assisting the interworkings of the individual States. Jefferson was acknowledged that the Central Government has a role in dealing with other nations and assisting with squabbles between States. Outside of that, each State should be left alone to commence the business of those that live within their borders.
Interpreting the Constitution is not difficult. The powers given to each branch is pretty cut and dry. The limitations on the Central Government are explicit and anything not addressed by the Constitution is left to the States and the People. Do I know better? I wouldn't got that far but I can recognize the obvious violations of the Constitution; health care mandate.
"Palin has been an Executive of a State before."
ReplyDeleteYes, a job she resigned from in at the start of the first year that Alaska would run a deficit. She faced hard choices and instead of proving her worth, resigned to cash in. That's not a vey admirable ciriculum vitae.
"As for Jefferson, the central government should be limited to assisting the interworkings of the individual States."
YES, BUT WHY DID HE FEEL THIS WAY? I'm not trying to yell, but you are evading the question I asked. Why exactly did Jefferson feel that a small central government was preferable? What was his vision of the country?
"Interpreting the Constitution is not difficult."
That's a pretty arrogant statement given your past comments about the constitution that have been suspect in their accuracy.
"Do I know better? I wouldn't got that far but I can recognize the obvious violations of the Constitution; health care mandate."
40 years of SCOTUS decisions contradict your stance. If the SCOTUS overtuns the healthcare bill (which they could) would overturn those 40 years of precedent. That would be the single biggest decision that the SCOTUS had made in a century IMO.
Truman
ReplyDelete40 years of SCOTUS? What I have read is that health care mandate is without precedent. Unless you are looking at the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause precedent?
Back to Jefferson, Jefferson did not like the taxes that the Crown was putting on the colonist and the one size fits all government. Jefferson thought the more local government was the better it worked for those it governed. Jefferson looked at the Federal Government as protecting the collection of States from a common enemy, i.e. foreign nation.
"40 years of SCOTUS?"
ReplyDeleteYes, the original Commerce Clause precedent actually dates basck to the "New Deal". The most recent precedent was decided in 1995 with the United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr. decision. To say that this "healthcare mandate" is without precedent assumes that the application of the commerce clause was without precedent since that was the portion of the constitution used to support it.
As to why Jefferson wanted a small central government, it had little to do with the states rights, etc. It had to do with his vision of this nation as an aggrarian economy, farming as the primary product of that economy. It was a very southern attitude. Hamilton, by comparison, saw the future as industrial which would require strong central government to manage export policies, etc. As such, those two dueling philosphies battled to determine our government's role in society.
Obviously Hamilton won, since our central government is robust and strong. The reason it ended up this way is precisely for the reasons Hamilton cited in his writings - because this nation became the industrial super power of the 19th and 20th centuries.
As much as I like the idea of a small central government, our economy cannot operate in that environment. Chaos would ensue as states duel for resources, corporate investment, etc. This would create trade wars similar to what happened in the colonies - pre revolution.
So to presume that we can somehow slide back into this small government ideal is not only idealistic, it's unrealistic IMO given the world we live in and the realities that brings.
Again, I would love to see movement in that direction, but there's a difference between movement and a complete reset of the political system we live within.
And that is the difference between idealism and pragmatism. You are an idealist, but truthfully, youre ideals are incompatible with the economy we live within. As such, pragmatism might be the better approach.
Truman
ReplyDeleteHere is what Justice Thomas wrote -
The Court today properly concludes that the Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the authority to prohibit gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school, as it attempted to do in the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4844. Although I join the majority, I write separately to observe that our case law has drifted far from the original understanding of the Commerce Clause. In a future case, we ought to temper our Commerce Clause jurisprudence in a manner that both makes sense of our more recent case law and is more faithful to the original understanding of that Clause.
Here further said -
Today, however, I merely support the Court's conclusion with a discussion of the text, structure, and history of the Commerce Clause and an analysis of our early case law. My goal is simply to show how far we have departed from the original understanding and to demonstrate that the result we reach today is by no means "radical," see post, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). I also want to point out the necessity of refashioning a coherent test that does not tend to "obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government." Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, supra, at 37.
Further stated -
At the same time, the Court took great pains to make clear that Congress could not regulate commerce "which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States." Id., at 194. Moreover, while suggesting that the Constitution might not permit States to regulate interstate or foreign commerce, the Court observed that "[i]nspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State" were but a small part "of that immense mass of legislation . . . not surrendered to a general government.
Notice the aspect of health laws in the above paragraph.
So again where is the precedent that states that Congress has the power to mandate a citizen of the United States must, as a being part of citizenship, purchase any product. By doing so we are only one step away from a police state which Justice Thomas alludes to as well in this opinion on the case you posted.
Viper,
ReplyDeleteI am in the office today so I don't have time to dig up the decision that started the commerce clause issues you see today. That said, you are already mandated to pay into a retirement fund, a healthcare fund, etc. This is but an extension of that fact in their argument. The rulings in support of FDR's new deal are what are used to garner the very progressive interpretation of the commerce clause.
Of note here, for the SCOTUS to rule against the healthcare bill would be to overturn decades of precedent which is why I say it would be their most significant ruling in 100 years. It would explicitly overturn Social Security and Medicare since the government won't be capable of mandating those functions across states.
The repercussions are as staggering as they are broad. As with most things, I don't think the Tea Party has thought out any of them except for the myopoc little aspect which is the healthcare mandate.
But like any pebble thrown in a pond, the ripples reach all the shores. And you may not like the outcomes when they reach you.
Truman
ReplyDeleteIf one has a cash job or barter's for a living or, I forget the city, uses another form of "currency" there is nothing contributed to SSN.
If,as you say, the health care mandate is declared unconstitutional - which the Florida judge did - and has a ripple effect to SSN and Medicare then so be it. I would like nothing better than to have the option to opt out of SSN and/or see it phased out. SSN has resulted in American savings being eroded to nearly zero.
While the concept of SSN was noble it has a negative effect by enslaving people to the government instead of saving for a rainy day. We, as a society, need to be more accountable for our own actions and not rely on the government to be our retirement, employer (UE benefits), or our medical provider.