Posted on 03/30/2011 6:28:27 PM PDT by HMS Surprise
The Tea Party is faced with a conundrum. If Congress can’t force Americans to buy health insurance, how can Congress force Americans to buy a retirement plan?
I haven’t come across a good answer for that question, and I’ve been looking, trust me.
The reason nothing has bubbled up seems clear enough: There is no good argument that allows for the one, and not the other.
Why is this cognitive dissonance allowed to go unchallenged? Probably because unlike the standard catch-phrases of freedom movements such as, habeus corpus, freedom to assemble, freedom of speech, etc., the real reason for the political enigma hides like a whale under our feet while we are fishing for minnows
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
It’s simple, Leave all the rules on collecting social Security funds the same. Just give the person contributing a choice of where he would like his money to go (either traditional Social security or 401k).Maybe this is a little too simple, but it seems to be plausible.
Soon elections will be meaningless if they’re not already. The most recent example is obama not appealing to the American public for action in libya. politicians now think they only need the governeds approval at election time. The rest of the time they will do what they want.
It’s hard not to conclude that the glory days of the Grand Republic are numbered. I don’t see a vast host of educated voters on the horizon anytime soon.
Social Security is a tax, ObamaCare requires you to buy a commercial product. See the distinction? If ObamaCare was like MediCare, a tax funded mandate, it would not be an issue.
ObamaCare, it seems to me, is worse than the British NHP and the HealthCanada or just about any other nationalized medical plan. We would have been much, much better off just adopting the Canadian system. Instead, we get something much, much worse.
Obviously the ultimate disregard of jurisdiction is the income tax and all of the diseased fruit that comes from this great misadventure.
Yeah, I was waiting for that canard. It’s a distinction without a difference. Obama could have simply imposed a healthcare tax in your universe and you would have slept easy knowing that the Republic was safe? Read the article, then comment again.
Because Social Security is a hole that’s already been dug. It’s much easier to not dig a whole in the first place than to climb out of a deep one you spent decades digging. To get out of social security the gov would have to come up with a whole lot of money it doesn’t have. I’m not even 50, and already 15% of my gross wages over my lifetime would equal a pretty kitty. Yep, 15%, because my employers’ contribution in my name was money that should have been mine. It was taken from me, so either the contract has to be honored or the money has to be returned. Hell, I’ll be extra nice and not even ask for interest.
I tend to agree with Reagan on Social Security, who in 1964 said that “destitution should not follow unemployment on account of old age.”
This doesn’t answer the constitutional question but I see it as a principle worth standing on. Government exists to protect and defend our liberties and when necessary, to care for those who can’t care for themselves. In my view, the best system would be for each state to have it’s own social security system (which would be constitutional) with its benefits being transferrable across state lines, similar to a 401k plan.
You obviously haven’t looked at the ponzi scheme very closely. If you get pennies on the dollar they will be devalued pennies. Get it? Wouldn’t it be better for you (and me; age 48) to take what few productive years we have left and create real wealth that can’t be arbitrarily taken at some future date? I’m just sayin’.
Thanks for standing with the Obamacare crowd, they would say the same thing and have the same “valid” argument that you have. Agree?
What IS a "tax" in your world, anyway?
You'll have to point out the underlined part for me in the Constitution.
I don’t agree. I’m not a bleeding heart. I don’t believe in a nanny state or that someone else should pay for my health care or retirement. I don’t have a problem with my tax money going to care for aging veterans. Why would be different for my other aging fellow citizens.
Help me out. Where is my logic going wrong.
I didn’t say that was in the constitution. It isn’t.
You assume that the feds, or the Staties, are the only generous organizations. Instead, assume that the American People are perfectly capable of helping their fellow man... when they aren’t disabled by the IRS.
Exactly. Social security is a welfare program for the elderly who can't provide for themselves. It's not a retirement plan. That's why it should be means tested like any other welfare program.
I stand corrected, but you did say;
Government exists to protect and defend our liberties and when necessary, to care for those who can’t care for themselves.
I disagree with that too.
Yep - I’ve said for quite awhile (I’m 50). “Just keep mine, I’m not going to see it anyway. Just let me keep it for myself from now on.” Im self-employed so the 15% really IS 15% for me. Wasted, down the drain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.