Are Social Security "Privitization" Schemes Unconstitutional?

Nigel,

Conservatives believe in something called freedom, which means everyone gets to decide how best to run their life, including their investments. Of course forcing people to invest is unconstitutional; but then, so is Social Security...
 
The President, Congress and the supreme court believe that social security is constitutional so it is.
 
Superfreak said:
Show us the privatization plan that FORCES individuals to invest in a private account.

Every one that I have seen gives people the OPTION of doing so... and then further gives them the OPTION of whether to invest in the stock market or in bonds.

The only plan that FORCES people to invest in an account would be.... the current Social Security system.
Click to expand...

Why is Nigel so obtuse? It's ridiculous to try to argue that private accounts, which were sold as CHOICE, would be comparable in any way to a mandate to purchase a financial product. The PSAs were an alternative to SS, but they were never ever even talked about as mandatory.

Nigel is a retard
 
hotdog said:
The President, Congress and the supreme court believe that social security is constitutional so it is.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't know why people have difficulty understanding that. The Preamble makes it clear the purpose of the Constitution, and thus the government, is to promote the general welfare. Addressing and attempting to rectify the problem of millions starving and becoming homeless, the destitute elderly, surely falls under general welfare.
 
tinfoil said:
Why is Nigel so obtuse? It's ridiculous to try to argue that private accounts, which were sold as CHOICE, would be comparable in any way to a mandate to purchase a financial product. The PSAs were an alternative to SS, but they were never ever even talked about as mandatory.

Nigel is a retard
Click to expand...


Bush tried to sell them on choice, but not everyone was convinced that was the best idea so you can take your "never ever" and shove it up your fucking ass, you shit-eating fuck face.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_04/b3917015_mz001.htm
 
NigelTufnel said:
Bush tried to sell them on choice, but not everyone was convinced that was the best idea so you can take your "never ever" and shove it up your fucking ass, you shit-eating fuck face.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_04/b3917015_mz001.htm
Click to expand...

But this article didn't show any politicians proposing making personal accounts mandatory. It's just Business Week giving its opinion on the issue and stating results from other countries who offered personal accounts.
 
Yurt said:
LOL

nigel usually chides his political opponents when they curse like this and says its because they are losing or something like that...

thanks nigel!
Click to expand...

And why aren't you "calling out" tinfoil? Oh, yeah - because he's on the right.

LOL
 
FuzzyBunny said:
Is it constitutional, Don't know. I haven't seen it structured beyond a Idea. I don't see a problem with government taxing you, then giving it back to you.
Click to expand...

Hey Fuzzy,

Congress clearly has the power to tax, but I don't see a grant of power to issue retirement monies.
 
cawacko said:
But this article didn't show any politicians proposing making personal accounts mandatory. It's just Business Week giving its opinion on the issue and stating results from other countries who offered personal accounts.
Click to expand...


I didn't say dick about politicians, did I? Neither did tinfoil, did he? Instead, he said that private accounts "were never ever even talked about as mandatory."

So, thanks for chiming in, cawacko, but you can go fuck yourself in the ear with a chainsaw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top