Thankyou obama voters

Henrin · Oct 5, 2013

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Because one of the enumerated powers is to provide for the general welfare of the nation. That's a vague, open ended power which is subject to discretion. A discretion which has been upheld time and time again by the U.S.S.C.

Actually they are. It's not open ended at all. The clause was not a grant of power to “spend” for the general welfare of the people, but was intended to “limit the power of taxation” to matters which provided for the welfare of the Union or the welfare of the whole nation. In other words, federal taxes could not be levied for certain providences, towns, cities, states, or people. This was not a power to create departments, give people social welfare, or to create banking powers out of no where.

Deuce · Oct 5, 2013

Henrin said:
Actually they are. It's not open ended at all. The clause was not a grant of power to “spend” for the general welfare of the people, but was intended to “limit the power of taxation” to matters which provided for the welfare of the Union or the welfare of the whole nation. In other words, federal taxes could not be levied for certain providences, towns, cities, states, or people. This was not a power to create departments, give people social welfare, or to create banking powers out of no where.

Health care is important to the welfare of the whole nation.

Henrin · Oct 5, 2013

Deuce said:
Health care is important to the welfare of the whole nation.

It's an individual service.

Sheik Yerbuti · Oct 5, 2013

Henrin said:
Actually they are. It's not open ended at all. The clause was not a grant of power to “spend” for the general welfare of the people, but was intended to “limit the power of taxation” to matters which provided for the welfare of the Union or the welfare of the whole nation. In other words, federal taxes could not be levied for certain providences, towns, cities, states, or people. This was not a power to create departments, give people social welfare, or to create banking powers out of no where.

That's not at all what it says. It actually says the Congress has the power to collect revenues (in the form of taxes, duties, and excises) to pay for debts, common defense, and general welfare.

General welfare is open to discretion.

Henrin · Oct 5, 2013

Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's not at all what it says. It actually says the Congress has the power to collect revenues (in the form of taxes, duties, and excises) to pay for debts, common defense, and general welfare.

General welfare is open to discretion.

It's part of the taxing and spending clause. It's listed as a purpose of taxation, not as an all encompassing power to cure the people and the country itself of all it's ills. As I already said, the General Welfare clause was included for and ensures that the “Powers herein granted” applied to the population in general as opposed to certain towns, counties, or states.

Sheik Yerbuti · Oct 5, 2013

Henrin said:
It's part of the taxing and spending clause. It's listed as a purpose of taxation, not as an all encompassing power to cure the people and the country itself of all it's ills. As I already said, the General Welfare clause was included for and ensures that the “Powers herein granted” applied to the population in general as opposed to certain towns, counties, or states.

It's true the Congress has to levy and collect taxes uniformly across the nation, but the Constitution is crystal clear ... the Congress can levy and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the nation.

"General welfare" is a vague term. Its implementation over various programs throughout our history has been constitutionally tested in the U.S. Supreme Court and has often prevailed. That it's prevailed at all over programs which are not defined in the enumerated powers outside of the "general welfare" clause is evidence that you're wrong.

Henrin · Oct 5, 2013

Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's true the Congress has to levy and collect taxes uniformly across the nation, but the Constitution is crystal clear ... the Congress can levy and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the nation.

Except the federal government doesn't apply taxes uniformly across the nation. Certain people are taxed more while others are taxed less while some people qualify for a tax while others do not. How is that uniform?

"General welfare" is a vague term. Its implementation over various programs throughout our history has been constitutionally tested in the U.S. Supreme Court and has often prevailed. That it's prevailed at all over programs which are not defined in the enumerated powers outside of the "general welfare" clause is evidence that you're wrong.

It's not evidence of anything. You can't just decree that a power was granted to the federal government because nine people ruled it was. The logic is faulty at it's foundation. The general welfare clause was a limit on taxation and it was never designed to be used to direct towards certain groups or be used for the benefit of certain groups.

Jetboogieman · Oct 5, 2013

Henrin said:
It's not evidence of anything. You can't just decree that a power was granted to the federal government because nine people ruled it was. The logic is faulty at it's foundation.

How is it faulty?

The reason it's faulty is simply because you don't agree with it.

The entire system is set up this way.

I didn't agree with the Obamacare ruling either by the way, but that's not my choice, Supreme courts are the best mankind has been able to do so far, in deciding the big questions when it comes to whether laws are correct or not.

The supreme court is the final say as long as you keep the system you have.

Awfully obnoxious of you to say it's faulty.

It's what the constitution says has to happen.

Henrin · Oct 5, 2013

Jetboogieman said:
How is it faulty?

The reason it's faulty is simply because you don't agree with it.

The entire system is set up this way.

I didn't agree with the Obamacare ruling either by the way, but that's not my choice, Supreme courts are the best mankind has been able to do so far, in deciding the big questions when it comes to whether laws are correct or not.

The supreme court is the final say as long as you keep the system you have.

Awfully obnoxious of you to say it's faulty.

It's what the constitution says has to happen.

The logic has always been faulty ever since the supreme court itself gave itself that power. Hell, the ruling itself is a logical fallacy.

Jetboogieman · Oct 5, 2013

Henrin said:
The logic has always been faulty ever since the supreme court itself gave itself that power.

It's been the Supreme Courts purview since the inception of the Republic.

Sorry buddy but it's a bit late to backtrack the entire history of the USA to pretend that your fantasy libertarian land ever existed.

Henrin · Oct 5, 2013

Jetboogieman said:
It's been the Supreme Courts purview since the inception of the Republic.

Sorry, but that's not true. They needed to grant themselves the power you speak of.

Sheik Yerbuti · Oct 6, 2013

Henrin said:
Except the federal government doesn't apply taxes uniformly across the nation. Certain people are taxed more while others are taxed less while some people qualify for a tax while others do not. How is that uniform?

Say what?? Of course progressive taxes are applied uniformly across the nation. In which part of the country do you think are taxes different?

Henrin said:
It's not evidence of anything. You can't just decree that a power was granted to the federal government because nine people ruled it was. The logic is faulty at it's foundation. The general welfare clause was a limit on taxation and it was never designed to be used to direct towards certain groups or be used for the benefit of certain groups.

That's your opinion, which you've offered no evidence to support. As long as general welfare is applied uniformly across the nation, which like progressive taxes, it is, then it's Constitutional. And it doesn't matter if you agree with those "nine people." They were Constitutionally empowered with the privilege of interpreting disputes in the Constitution. What evidence is in your possession to indicate you know the Constitution better than the U.S. Supreme Court?

Sheik Yerbuti · Oct 6, 2013

Henrin said:
The logic has always been faulty ever since the supreme court itself gave itself that power. Hell, the ruling itself is a logical fallacy.

Gave themselves what power? The power to interpret the Constitution? Who do you think has that power if not the judicial branch?

sawyerloggingon · Oct 6, 2013

Buck Ewer said:
Not true. If you are buying your own insurance you will not be fined.
I understand your confusion... you have been lied to by the right wing ... you need to expand your information sources.

Your insurance has to meet obamacare standards or it does not count and you pay the fine.

sawyerloggingon · Oct 6, 2013

Deuce said:
Technically speaking you can buy your own insurance and still be subject to the penalty under the right circumstances. You have to:
1) Have enough income to not be eligible for subsidy or medicaid/CHIP/etc
2) Not be on medicare
3) Buy insurance that doesn't meet the established standards
4) Have the total premiums be less than 8% of your income

Such people should really be slapped for buying such ****ty health insurance, though! I mean, there are even provisions to accept "catastrophic" plans that don't meet the exchange bronze-level coverage. So, your insurance has to be really bad to qualify you for the mandate tax.

Bingo we have a winner. My insurance is only ****ty as you put it because it is only for if I get really sick, high deductible and no office visits. It does not meet obamacare standards so I am forced onto obamacare.

sawyerloggingon · Oct 6, 2013

thinkforyoursel said:
I said in this forum many...many times ...Republicans always act against their own interest!! And here's a classic case.

This doesn't surprise me ...almost always when there's a government program the rats howl and squeal that the world is coming to and end ....and when no ones looking ....like suckling they run to the trough to feast!

The farce that food stamps for example benefits only urban non-whites ..is just that ...a farce. The rats wail away at these programs and then run to their mailboxes in the south for their ..."government checks"!!

And we understand this very well because most republicans states ...are not donor states and often fed by the very democrats they despise.

So surprise ...surprise ....we have one rat who've seen through the lies spewed by fox news and the right wing about Obama Care!!

Exactly right, I want what is best for America and Americans. I do not make political decisions based on who gives me the most goodies.

rabbitcaebannog · Oct 6, 2013

sawyerloggingon said:
That is exactly the concern I and others that didn't want obamacare had. Obama himself said just take a pill old person and that is what I fear will be said to me someday now. My mom got a hip at age 73 and 10 years later she is going strong and having a great life. I took her on some local paved bike trails lately and the old broad was haulin ass. I may not be so fortunate with this obamadoesn'tcareaboutoldpeople plan.

Huh? About the only thing Obama didn't pass through as far as conservative ideas on healthcare is repealing consumer protection for a minimal standard (presently must be included in health plans). If the GOP had their way, they would dismantle such protections allowing insurers to charge the same prices for crap services in order to maximize profits.

Moot · Oct 7, 2013

Tucker Case said:
Ben and Jerry's doesn't make people fat and diabetic, people make themselves fat a diabetic. Same is true with McDonald's. I actually believe in the concept of personal responsibility. The reason why Ben and Jerry's is a better company is because they don't treat their employees like dog**** and they don't care more about their bottom line than they do with doing what's "right". Costco is another example of a mega-company that actually deserves my business.

And because I actually believe in the concept of personal responsibility, I try to buy locally produced products as much as possible, though, and if a local product is unavailable, I try to go through a locally owned business. But when even that option is not available to me, I give my patronage to companies like Costco.

That's what personal responsibility requires. Me doing what I can to make a difference. Business owners and investors had their ****ing chance to use personal responsibility to prevent something like Obamacare from happening by taking a hit on their own bottom lines in order to offer affordable healthcare to their employees. They forsook their personal responsibility, and now it is being forced upon them.

So be it. If someone refuses to take personal responsibility when they have ample opportunity to do so, then I agree with forcing said responsibility upon them. They aren't ethical enough to do it on their own.

If that responsibility puts them out of business, so be it, they weren't a worthy company.

No mega company should ever be given a pass. The only exception to this are the small companies where the owners are only making a moderate income themselves. Like the very small construction companies around here where the owner is only making $100,000 or so (while his employees are averaging $50,000 to $60,000). That person doesn't have the capital necessary to provide healthcare. That business is not unethical, though. The owner is making more than his employees, as he should be, but not exponentially more. If you take that same outfit and have the owner making $500,000 a year, then he should have to provide healthcare for his employees. I don't care if he only makes $250,000 a year because of it. That's where he should have been in the first place, IMO. He was greedy and forsook his personal responsibility. :shrug:

Well said, Tucker. I totally agree with your concept of personal responsibilty and I also support companies like Costco that treat their employees fairly....and care about giving value to their customers as opposed to only caring about their shareholders profits.

Thankyou obama voters

Henrin

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Henrin

Sheik Yerbuti

Henrin

Sheik Yerbuti

Henrin

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon

Henrin

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon

Henrin

Sheik Yerbuti

Sheik Yerbuti

sawyerloggingon

sawyerloggingon

sawyerloggingon

rabbitcaebannog

Moot

Thankyou obama voters

Outer space potato man

Somewhere in Babylon

Somewhere in Babylon

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency