Fine. Give me a hundred bucks. No reason. I just want it.
See...socialism can work against you to, my naive little child.

You might want to take a look at that pesky 5th amendment again.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

the masses who are lazy are always ready to take their free gifts!

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

That's an archaic artifact that's been ignored for generations. How do you justify taxes collected with that outmoded quote from a museum piece? How about that "just compensation" as determined by county planning commissions when trading occupants for others who pay more "rent?" Modern times have progressed past what the Constitution can provide for. Hillary Clinton won't be distracted or deterred by such old and out-dated obstacles.

Your giggle of the day. Democrats are past masters at relieving people of their property.

...Could she even really pull it off? I mean, I'd think there'd be some major opposition to such an idea in Congress. Or is she just trying to tell people what they want to hear?

__________________
LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!

All Hillary did was steal an idea that was printed in Time magazine.

I haven't decided how I feel about it, as it is clearly vague, but the premise is essentially what Bush was advocating for SS.

I would probably have the same concerns as I did with the Bush plan.

1) Where do you get the money.
2) Who manages the money, and what kind of fees do they get.
3) Is there some sort of insurance to insure all the money is not lost.

I would suggest that people read the actual proposal before they bash it.

From an economic stand point - the question would be does the forced savings and extra taxes it entails outweigh the savings gain.

It seems to me like 20billion/year thrust into various savings accounts would be a good wealth creating device. As before, I would have the same 3 concerns.

But turning $5000 into $17,000 in 18 years for 4 million Americans per year, to be used only for college or down payment on a home, or else the government keeps the$17,000, could have many economic benefits.

I suspect the fact that Hillary said it and not Bush is playing into various perspectives. I would like to see the figures and concerns addressed before I make judgement. The name attached to the idea does not factor into my logic.


Ixtellor

P.S. Bush/Clinton like babies So I am against babies.

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

It's not remotely like SS. People who pay into SS would have the opportunity to choose how their money is invested. Why is that so hard to understand? It's like some of y'all think it's the government's money in the first place.

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt