Beating Social Security

[Skull Pilot]

Wonderful language.
You must be a liberal, huh?


Galveston, Texas is pretty happy with their privatized plan.

Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.

"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."



When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

But in the market you at least are not subject to the whim of inept politicians

Given the choice would you let the idiots in DC handle your money or would you rather do it yourself?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.

"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."



When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

"...there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - ..."
Same way it is being done currently.

Out of the general fund

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."



When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

"...there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - ..."
Same way it is being done currently.

Out of the general fund

This is the illusion of the masses. We say SS isn't working so we are going to allow people to opt-out of SS. But we aren't going to let them out entirely. We are going to switch the pocket that pays, and tell the people that they are opting out. We are going to allow you to keep your 12.4% of your wages. Quietly let's not tell anyone that we are going to increase income taxes of those who leave by the same amount.

The only thing that they are opt-out of is getting benefits.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Really, my language? Lmao, you've never listened to the Nixon tapes, have you? The only reason people make a reference to someone's language is because they've got nothing else to offer. I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists. Why is that? Because SS is a federal program and no one can adjust it without federal approval AND because if they could there would no longer be a debate between the two political parties about it's privatization.

"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."



When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

But in the market you at least are not subject to the whim of inept politicians

Given the choice would you let the idiots in DC handle your money or would you rather do it yourself?

This is more illusion. There is no money 'being handled'. It is redistributed. The dollar that you contribute today isn't handled. It is given to existing beneficiaries.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

"...there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - ..."
Same way it is being done currently.

Out of the general fund

This is the illusion of the masses. We say SS isn't working so we are going to allow people to opt-out of SS. But we aren't going to let them out entirely. We are going to switch the pocket that pays, and tell the people that they are opting out. We are going to allow you to keep your 12.4% of your wages. Quietly let's not tell anyone that we are going to increase income taxes of those who leave by the same amount.

The only thing that they are opt-out of is getting benefits.

No they are opting out of piss poor benefits for a more secure retirement

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

"...there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - ..."
Same way it is being done currently.

Out of the general fund

This is the illusion of the masses. We say SS isn't working so we are going to allow people to opt-out of SS. But we aren't going to let them out entirely. We are going to switch the pocket that pays, and tell the people that they are opting out. We are going to allow you to keep your 12.4% of your wages. Quietly let's not tell anyone that we are going to increase income taxes of those who leave by the same amount.

The only thing that they are opt-out of is getting benefits.

No they are opting out of piss poor benefits for a more secure retirement

Just so I understand your idea of opting-out. They still have to pay, but they just don't get any benefits. Just changing the name of the tax doesn't mean that you aren't having to pay for the system.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

"...there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - ..."
Same way it is being done currently.

Out of the general fund

This is the illusion of the masses. We say SS isn't working so we are going to allow people to opt-out of SS. But we aren't going to let them out entirely. We are going to switch the pocket that pays, and tell the people that they are opting out. We are going to allow you to keep your 12.4% of your wages. Quietly let's not tell anyone that we are going to increase income taxes of those who leave by the same amount.

The only thing that they are opt-out of is getting benefits.

No they are opting out of piss poor benefits for a more secure retirement

Just so I understand your idea of opting-out. They still have to pay, but they just don't get any benefits. Just changing the name of the tax doesn't mean that you aren't having to pay for the system.

Let's check your understanding.

Do you believe in liberty?

How about the United States Constitution?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"I'm not familiar with Galveston's plan, but I seriously doubt it exists."



When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire witha payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

"...there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - ..."
Same way it is being done currently.

Out of the general fund

The general fund owes the SS trust fund over 2 trillion dollars. That's a legitimate US government debt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Market risk is a laughably absurd idea.

.

That's a 'famous last words' waiting to happen.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

"...there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - ..."
Same way it is being done currently.

Out of the general fund

This is the illusion of the masses. We say SS isn't working so we are going to allow people to opt-out of SS. But we aren't going to let them out entirely. We are going to switch the pocket that pays, and tell the people that they are opting out. We are going to allow you to keep your 12.4% of your wages. Quietly let's not tell anyone that we are going to increase income taxes of those who leave by the same amount.

The only thing that they are opt-out of is getting benefits.

No they are opting out of piss poor benefits for a more secure retirement

Just so I understand your idea of opting-out. They still have to pay, but they just don't get any benefits. Just changing the name of the tax doesn't mean that you aren't having to pay for the system.

Let's check your understanding.

Do you believe in liberty?

How about the United States Constitution?

I believe in liberty, but I have to buy auto insurance in order to own a car in my state. It may not be a good transaction but the government tells you all sorts of things that you have to do. Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

"...there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - ..."
Same way it is being done currently.

Out of the general fund

The general fund owes the SS trust fund over 2 trillion dollars. That's a legitimate US government debt.

Yes that is legitimate US government debt. It is held against a liability that is about 10 times that size. He isn't talking about debt though. He is talking about using the general fund to pay off the unfunded liability. You are talking about the dime of solution. He is talking about the dollar of problem. Let's not confuse the two.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Out of the general fund

This is the illusion of the masses. We say SS isn't working so we are going to allow people to opt-out of SS. But we aren't going to let them out entirely. We are going to switch the pocket that pays, and tell the people that they are opting out. We are going to allow you to keep your 12.4% of your wages. Quietly let's not tell anyone that we are going to increase income taxes of those who leave by the same amount.

The only thing that they are opt-out of is getting benefits.

No they are opting out of piss poor benefits for a more secure retirement

Just so I understand your idea of opting-out. They still have to pay, but they just don't get any benefits. Just changing the name of the tax doesn't mean that you aren't having to pay for the system.

Let's check your understanding.

Do you believe in liberty?

How about the United States Constitution?

I believe in liberty, but I have to buy auto insurance in order to own a car in my state. It may not be a good transaction but the government tells you all sorts of things that you have to do. Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them.

"Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them."

Well...perhaps it's time for you to get around to using your own head instead of being led.

The Constitution is written in English, and, even though it is not my first language,I can read it well enough to determine that there is no authority in it for the government to issue insurance.

You don't have to believe me.....read article 1, section 8 for yourself.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's assuming the market doesn't collapsed, and most assuredly it will. I certainly don't want Wall Street playing with my money, their record sucks.

1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

"...there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - ..."
Same way it is being done currently.

Out of the general fund

The general fund owes the SS trust fund over 2 trillion dollars. That's a legitimate US government debt.

Yeah the government "borrows" money from itself for a slush fund

If I ran a private pension fund like that I'd be thrown in jail and you'd be the first to cheer yet you're just fine with the government doing it

 

[Skull Pilot]

Out of the general fund

This is the illusion of the masses. We say SS isn't working so we are going to allow people to opt-out of SS. But we aren't going to let them out entirely. We are going to switch the pocket that pays, and tell the people that they are opting out. We are going to allow you to keep your 12.4% of your wages. Quietly let's not tell anyone that we are going to increase income taxes of those who leave by the same amount.

The only thing that they are opt-out of is getting benefits.

No they are opting out of piss poor benefits for a more secure retirement

Just so I understand your idea of opting-out. They still have to pay, but they just don't get any benefits. Just changing the name of the tax doesn't mean that you aren't having to pay for the system.

Let's check your understanding.

Do you believe in liberty?

How about the United States Constitution?

I believe in liberty, but I have to buy auto insurance in order to own a car in my state. It may not be a good transaction but the government tells you all sorts of things that you have to do. Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them.

You can own a car without insuring it

You have to insure it in order to drive on public roads and you only have to have enough coverage to cover any damage you might do to public property

That has nothing to do with retirement savings and the fact that SS subjects people to huge opportunity costs and leaves them poorer than they should be

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

This is the illusion of the masses. We say SS isn't working so we are going to allow people to opt-out of SS. But we aren't going to let them out entirely. We are going to switch the pocket that pays, and tell the people that they are opting out. We are going to allow you to keep your 12.4% of your wages. Quietly let's not tell anyone that we are going to increase income taxes of those who leave by the same amount.

The only thing that they are opt-out of is getting benefits.

No they are opting out of piss poor benefits for a more secure retirement

Just so I understand your idea of opting-out. They still have to pay, but they just don't get any benefits. Just changing the name of the tax doesn't mean that you aren't having to pay for the system.

Let's check your understanding.

Do you believe in liberty?

How about the United States Constitution?

I believe in liberty, but I have to buy auto insurance in order to own a car in my state. It may not be a good transaction but the government tells you all sorts of things that you have to do. Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them.

"Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them."

Well...perhaps it's time for you to get around to using your own head instead of being led.

The Constitution is written in English, and, even though it is not my first language,I can read it well enough to determine that there is no authority in it for the government to issue insurance.

You don't have to believe me.....read article 1, section 8 for yourself.

Are you disputing that Congress has the power to tax?

Are you disputing that Congress has the right to provide for the General Welfare?

Are you disputing the right of the Supreme Court to determine constitutionality?

Your better case in the 5th Amendment's takings clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Payroll taxes are not like other taxes which provide pass through benefits that can't really be measured. SS takes money and bases benefits on that revenue. You are not getting just compensation.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

This is the illusion of the masses. We say SS isn't working so we are going to allow people to opt-out of SS. But we aren't going to let them out entirely. We are going to switch the pocket that pays, and tell the people that they are opting out. We are going to allow you to keep your 12.4% of your wages. Quietly let's not tell anyone that we are going to increase income taxes of those who leave by the same amount.

The only thing that they are opt-out of is getting benefits.

No they are opting out of piss poor benefits for a more secure retirement

Just so I understand your idea of opting-out. They still have to pay, but they just don't get any benefits. Just changing the name of the tax doesn't mean that you aren't having to pay for the system.

Let's check your understanding.

Do you believe in liberty?

How about the United States Constitution?

I believe in liberty, but I have to buy auto insurance in order to own a car in my state. It may not be a good transaction but the government tells you all sorts of things that you have to do. Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them.

You can own a car without insuring it

You have to insure it in order to drive on public roads and you only have to have enough coverage to cover any damage you might do to public property

That has nothing to do with retirement savings and the fact that SS subjects people to huge opportunity costs and leaves them poorer than they should be

You must not live in GA. You have to insure a car that is completely immobile in GA. It can be parked on private property with no trespassing signs, and it is required to be insured. You don't have to insure it, but you can break any law.

It is an example of a legal requirement to buy something that may not be a very good deal. The government has scores of regulations which force you to over pay for your goods and services.

SS doesn't make people 'poorer', unless you compare SS to an alternate universe in which existing beneficiaries to told "No". The tax that you use to pay those benefits, can be called anything you wish. Today that tax happens to pass through SS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No they are opting out of piss poor benefits for a more secure retirement

Just so I understand your idea of opting-out. They still have to pay, but they just don't get any benefits. Just changing the name of the tax doesn't mean that you aren't having to pay for the system.

Let's check your understanding.

Do you believe in liberty?

How about the United States Constitution?

I believe in liberty, but I have to buy auto insurance in order to own a car in my state. It may not be a good transaction but the government tells you all sorts of things that you have to do. Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them.

"Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them."

Well...perhaps it's time for you to get around to using your own head instead of being led.

The Constitution is written in English, and, even though it is not my first language,I can read it well enough to determine that there is no authority in it for the government to issue insurance.

You don't have to believe me.....read article 1, section 8 for yourself.

Are you disputing that Congress has the power to tax?

Are you disputing that Congress has the right to provide for the General Welfare?

Are you disputing the right of the Supreme Court to determine constitutionality?

Your better case in the 5th Amendment's takings clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Payroll taxes are not like other taxes which provide pass through benefits that can't really be measured. SS takes money and bases benefits on that revenue. You are not getting just compensation.

Clearly you have no clue as to what the Constitution says.

The taxing ability is only in support of the enumerated powers.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

1. Opt out
2. The market, historically, has done well
3. Social Security is non guaranteed

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

"...there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - ..."
Same way it is being done currently.

Out of the general fund

The general fund owes the SS trust fund over 2 trillion dollars. That's a legitimate US government debt.

Yeah the government "borrows" money from itself for a slush fund

If I ran a private pension fund like that I'd be thrown in jail and you'd be the first to cheer yet you're just fine with the government doing it

I am not fine with Social Security. It is an economic train wreck. What I find interesting is that few of its critics understand the depth of the problem. Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme. It is structurally closer to check kiting where every generation serves as a new bank. The latter is a much more serious problem. There is almost some skin in the Ponzi scheme. The only thing in check kiting is blank checks.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Just so I understand your idea of opting-out. They still have to pay, but they just don't get any benefits. Just changing the name of the tax doesn't mean that you aren't having to pay for the system.

Let's check your understanding.

Do you believe in liberty?

How about the United States Constitution?

I believe in liberty, but I have to buy auto insurance in order to own a car in my state. It may not be a good transaction but the government tells you all sorts of things that you have to do. Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them.

"Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them."

Well...perhaps it's time for you to get around to using your own head instead of being led.

The Constitution is written in English, and, even though it is not my first language,I can read it well enough to determine that there is no authority in it for the government to issue insurance.

You don't have to believe me.....read article 1, section 8 for yourself.

Are you disputing that Congress has the power to tax?

Are you disputing that Congress has the right to provide for the General Welfare?

Are you disputing the right of the Supreme Court to determine constitutionality?

Your better case in the 5th Amendment's takings clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Payroll taxes are not like other taxes which provide pass through benefits that can't really be measured. SS takes money and bases benefits on that revenue. You are not getting just compensation.

Clearly you have no clue as to what the Constitution says.

The taxing ability is only in support of the enumerated powers.

Which takes me to two or three...

Is is that Congress does not have the right to provide for the General Welfare, or are you disputing the Supreme Courts right to determine constitutionality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's check your understanding.

Do you believe in liberty?

How about the United States Constitution?

I believe in liberty, but I have to buy auto insurance in order to own a car in my state. It may not be a good transaction but the government tells you all sorts of things that you have to do. Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them.

"Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them."

Well...perhaps it's time for you to get around to using your own head instead of being led.

The Constitution is written in English, and, even though it is not my first language,I can read it well enough to determine that there is no authority in it for the government to issue insurance.

You don't have to believe me.....read article 1, section 8 for yourself.

Are you disputing that Congress has the power to tax?

Are you disputing that Congress has the right to provide for the General Welfare?

Are you disputing the right of the Supreme Court to determine constitutionality?

Your better case in the 5th Amendment's takings clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Payroll taxes are not like other taxes which provide pass through benefits that can't really be measured. SS takes money and bases benefits on that revenue. You are not getting just compensation.

Clearly you have no clue as to what the Constitution says.

The taxing ability is only in support of the enumerated powers.

Which takes me to two or three...

Is is that Congress does not have the right to provide for the General Welfare, or are you disputing the Supreme Courts right to determine constitutionality.

Next lesson:

[Liberal judicial activism] "seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country. "
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf