• Wait… yeah!

    Jon Cohn makes a point that seems so smart, I wish I’d thought of it first.  If the individual mandate is so bad because – evidently for the first time in history – it involves government forcing you to buy a private product, then why have so many conservatives in the past (and present) advocated for privitizing Social Security?  Would that not be government forcing you to buy a private product?

    Was that unconstitutional?  Was that tyranny?  Is it still?  Will no one speak out on this gross overstep of government on the slippery slope to fascism?

    UPDATE by Austin: If you read Cohn, read both of his posts: part 1part 2.

    Share
    Comments closed
     
    • Aaron
      Devils advocate only here:

      SSI is a constitionally divined deduction. Right, left, center–you may hate it, but that is established law.

      Is the manner in which Uncle Sam invests that money–5% of it if I recall proposal, equivalent to what ACA prescribes?

      In situation #1, the acquisition of funds is not in question, only how it is invested. In situation #2, it is the pocketbook-ectomy part the riles those who take offense. Who you give it to, how you insure yourself, etc., is secondary.

      I do see a difference, but I make no judgements as far as what is and is not constitional, or right or wrong for that matter.

      Brad