Can conservatives explain to me why the individual mandate is unconstitutional but...

[Phokus]

... mandatory private savings accounts (in order to replace social security) that conservatives champion are somehow constitutionally kosher?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

... mandatory private savings accounts (in order to replace social security) that conservatives champion are somehow constitutionally kosher?

? Nice try but it's not close to the same.

I don't support SS so even if it were close to the same - I'd rather see SS dissolved.

 

[Thump553]

? Nice try but it's not close to the same.

I don't support SS so even if it were close to the same - I'd rather see SS dissolved.

Clumsy effort-you didn't even attempt to answer the question.

 

[Phokus]

? Nice try but it's not close to the same.

I don't support SS so even if it were close to the same - I'd rather see SS dissolved.

The government forcing you to put your own money in private accounts is pretty much the same thing. Nice try trying to say it's not, just because 'your team' was trying to push for it.

For course, if Democrats tried to take yet another conservative idea (which is pretty much what Obamacare is) and implement it, you guys would go from cheering the idea to bitching about liberals STRONG ARMING YOU into doing things you don't want to, just like you're doing now.

 

[bfdd]

Phokus, there isn't much of a difference. I don't much support either.

 

[Phokus]

Phokus, there isn't much of a difference. I don't much support either.

? Nice try but it's not close to the same.

You can see who the fake conservative here is.

 

[sactoking]

I'm against both and that's that (of course I'm not a "conservative", but there you go).

 

[Anarchist420]

There is a difference between the pro-business neoconservatives who want to quasi-socialize everything and the pro-market conservatives who want to end the state.

 

[bfdd]

You can see who the fake conservative here is.

Might help that I don't consider myself a conservative...

 

[ElFenix]

SS is using the taxing power, the mandate is trying to use the commerce power rather than the taxing power for political reasons.

 

[Fern]

I oppose private accounts for the reasons I have posted here often.

My understanding is that private accounts allow:

1. Segregation of SS contributions into individual accounts owned by the participant. Currently, there is just one big SS and if you die your heirs do not get the balance of your account.

2. Possibly investments in something other than SS bonds. IIRC, some proposals allow for a multitude of investment options similar to those permitted in IRA's or 401K plans, others do not.

So, all I see is a proposed change to the investment of SS contributions. Therefore I do not see how this relates to the question of the constitutionality of an individual mandate forcing people to enter into a market and purchase a product from a private company.

Fern

 

[FoBoT]

the answer is that there are almost as many progressive Republicans as Democrats, so yes, it can get confusing when they all try to control your lives through the federal government

 

[OCGuy]

Social Security is a tax. You would be diverting that tax into a private fund instead of a public credit card for the politicians to raid.

Also, if you know anything about an upside-down pyramid, SS is screwed.

Forcing a citizen into a mandatory contract with a private insurance company is NOT constitutional, and will NOT stand.

 

[senseamp]

Both are equally constitutional, but one was passed by a Democrat, and the SCOTUS is 5:4 Republican. If it was a Republican who passed exactly the same bill, SCOTUS would have no issue with its constitutionality.

 

[soccerballtux]

Both are equally constitutional, but one was passed by a Democrat, and the SCOTUS is 5:4 Republican. If it was a Republican who passed exactly the same bill, SCOTUS would have no issue with its constitutionality.

it's ok, now that you have Sotoh-my-or in there she'll overturn it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The government forcing you to put your own money in private accounts is pretty much the same thing. Nice try trying to say it's not, just because 'your team' was trying to push for it.

For course, if Democrats tried to take yet another conservative idea (which is pretty much what Obamacare is) and implement it, you guys would go from cheering the idea to bitching about liberals STRONG ARMING YOU into doing things you don't want to, just like you're doing now.

No, SS has been ruled a "tax"(whole different topic) and you have no right to anything. The option of creating accounts that a person has a right to is still not "forcing" them to buy something. sheesh.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You can see who the fake conservative here is.

lol, I had a big long explaination typed out originally about how SS was not constitutional but decided to not go that route. If you'd like to go there, we can but I figured you'd whine like a little bitch if your little attempt at a "gotcha" thread went off in a different direction.


No insults or personal attacks.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Phokus]

No, SS has been ruled a "tax"(whole different topic) and you have no right to anything. The option of creating accounts that a person has a right to is still not "forcing" them to buy something. sheesh.

That's just a technicality though, your money goes directly into a private investment account and you can't touch it until a certain age.

Technically speaking, you're not even 'forced' to buy insurance under obamacare, you just have a tax penalty if you don't. Seems you're actually more 'free' under this scenario.

 

[Craig234]

the answer is that there are almost as many progressive Republicans as Democrats, so yes, it can get confusing when they all try to control your lives through the federal government

You're deluded. There are almost as many women who pee standing as men!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

That's just a technicality though, your money goes directly into a private investment account and you can't touch it until a certain age.

Technically speaking, you're not even 'forced' to buy insurance under obamacare, you just have a tax penalty if you don't. Seems you're actually more 'free' under this scenario.

uh, forcing you to buy something is not the same as taking part of a tax you pay and allowing you to put a portion of it in an account you have rights to... but no doubt reality is lost on people like you. No wonder this country is so F'd...

 

[Phokus]

uh, forcing you to buy something is not the same as taking part of a tax you pay and allowing you to put a portion of it in an account you have rights to... but no doubt reality is lost on people like you. No wonder this country is so F'd...

LOL, Just THINK about that for a minute, if 'taxation' is the only difference, Obama could just use that as a loophole: Obama could just tax everyone, put that money in some sort of account that could ONLY be used to buy insurance. There's hardly any difference at all.

And you're one to talk, the guy with Reagan (aka, the guy who raised taxes like 11 times and fled Beirut when the marines barrack was bombed) as his avatar. If he didn't have an "R" next to his name, you'd call him a liberal pussy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

LOL, Just THINK about that for a minute, if 'taxation' is the only difference, Obama could just use that as a loophole: Obama could just tax everyone, put that money in some sort of account that could ONLY be used to buy insurance. There's hardly any difference at all.

Uh public vs private? really? you just ignore that reality? You can keep trying but it's clearly not the same. PS, don't forget that it's being claimed as constitutional under the commerce clause which has already been pointed out to you in this thread. There is no "tax" loophole.

BTW, the commerce clause wasn't for allowing the feds to regulate(as in today's meaning of running), it was old englis "regulate" which meant to "make regular". If you knew anything of the history of the Constitution and commerce clause you'd know it was not an open invitation to run things - but rather to stop the tariff wars among the states.

 

[Phokus]

Uh public vs private? really? you just ignore that reality? You can keep trying but it's clearly not the same. PS, don't forget that it's being claimed as constitutional under the commerce clause which has already been pointed out to you in this thread. There is no "tax" loophole.

BTW, the commerce clause wasn't for allowing the feds to regulate(as in today's meaning of running), it was old englis "regulate" which meant to "make regular". If you knew anything of the history of the Constitution and commerce clause you'd know it was not an open invitation to run things - but rather to stop the tariff wars among the states.

That is a 'tax' loophole. Since when are 'private' accounts 'public'? It's not like the government is taking the money and paying the president's salary or paying for a war, it's going directly into a PRIVATE account.

 

[FoBoT]

so why are the progressives so worried about this anyway as they all want a true single payer system anyway, whether the SCOTUS bombs this for them or SCOTUS upholds, this isn't what anybody wants anyway

 

[CADsortaGUY]

That is a 'tax' loophole. Since when are 'private' accounts 'public'? It's not like the government is taking the money and paying the president's salary or paying for a war, it's going directly into a PRIVATE account.

public= gov't private= not gov't company. Sorry for you confusion.