Obama's 73rd anniversary of Social Security speech says Social Security is a social compact. Since when?

Question

A social contract is generally accepted to mean that a free individual would reasonably consent to participate in it. When did the confiscatory nature of social security contributions become part of any social contract? Our social contract is the United States Constitution and I can't find it stated anywhere in that document that we must create and maintain this program. And when did we collectively decide that being forced into this pyramid scheme is in keeping with the "..the very idea of mutual responsibility..." for providing a "...secure, earned retirement...?" I'm not responsible for providing a secure retirement for anyone but me and my family.

This is the essential message of Obama's speech commemorating the 73rd anniversary of social security from yesterday. This socialist tripe substantiates my observation that as a Constitutional lawyer Obama is clueless.

http://ochairball.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-on-social-security.html

Answer 1

You don’t seem to have much use for Social Security.  Welcome to the club.  Obama can call it a “social compact,” but it is more of a socialist compact than a “social” one.  Within two years of its enactment, the Supreme Court ruled the Act unconstitutional.  The Court said congress did not have the authority to require American workers to participate in a retirement plan.  So the contributions called for by the Act were replaced with taxes.  Defined benefits were replaced with discretionary benefits, with the discretion to be exercised by congress.  It is that discretion that has allowed congress to increase benefits in the past, and it is that same discretion that will allow it to reduce them in the future as the SS system moves closer to insolvency.  

Social Security is not a retirement plan.  It is a welfare plan.

Barack Obama is not clueless at all.  He is devious. Notice how he said we need to strengthen SS’s solvency “while protecting MIDDLE CLASS families from benefit cuts, tax increases or increases in the retirement age.”  That’s Obamanese for “raise the payroll taxes of people who are above the poverty line and ensure that they will get NOTHING from SS.”

Below is a link to an article I found more than a year ago.  It really lays it all on the line.  

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/03/12/2...

How can Obama talk about SS’s “guarantee” when there is no guarantee of any kind?  Now let’s wait for him to redefine “middle class” so he can cut out the bulk of the people who paid so much for so long based on their belief that they could depend on government promises that SS would be there for them.

Obama took the opportunity to bash Bush’s proposal of several years ago to partially privatize SS.  Historically, funds invested in the stock market have returned 10 percent per year.  How much has SS returned?  ZERO percent.  The money is all gone – every dime of it.

I am sure that even the poorest among us, who are likely to be the only ones who will receive any future benefits from SS, will recognize what a foul game our elected “representatives” have played with us.  They are smart enough to realize that when all the blood has been squeezed out of the rich turnip, Obama and those of his ilk will look for another turnip to squeeze.  At the rate we’re going, that won’t be long from now.  And the poor turnip will get squeezed hardest of all.

How could Obama sponsor the Global Poverty Act that will require us to spend $70 billion per year to fight poverty in foreign countries (mainly African ones) while he is, at the same time, driving millions of our citizens into poverty?  That is EXACTLY what he is planning to do.

Answer 2

the philosophical concept of social contract does not address the same issues as present-day juridical contract theory, making the name "social contract" potentially misleading. For this reason some thinkers, such as James Madison, preferred the term social compact. The key notion of social contract or compact is that the individual consents by entering or remaining on the dominion of an existing society, which is usually a geographic territory, in much the same way one does when entering or remaining in someone's household or private property. People are normally brought up from childhood to respect the boundaries of societies, including families, and the rules made by them for their territorial spaces. That is part of the socialization development process.

Answer 3

Im with you Tickled Blue 100 %.

Answer 4

The idea that the King is to concern himself with the welfare of his subjects goes way back to Biblical times, and is nothing new.

Selfishness has no place in civilized society. Forced generosity is better than no generosity at all.

Just talk to any member of the generation who lived through the Great Depression, and ask what they think of Social Security.