Manhattan Buckeye;1141363 wrote: This is the first time in American history there is a "tax" (in reality it is a forced purchase) simply for being an American citizen domiciled in the U.S.

The point is that the mechanism of action behind the mandate is hardly different than any other type of tax and you're potentially liable for any type of tax just by virtue of being a u.s. citizen.

And furthermore, Congress has required an individual citizen to make a purchase by virtue of being a u.s. citizen before!

The Second United States Congress...composed of founding fathers...passed the Militia Acts of 1792 which required all able bodied white males between 18-45 to purchase a weapon. But, no anti-federalists litigated it so we don't know whether or not the Supreme Court would have knocked it down. But considering it was the founding fathers who passed this law and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were around and didn't raise a stink and that George Washington invoked the law to shut down a tea party style protest over a Whiskey tax...Perhaps those on the right out to reconsider whether the Founding Fathers would be so outraged over an individual purchase mandate.

Con_Alma;1141477 wrote:No one is forced to purchase Medicare or SS. No one. There are many, many people that do not pay into either Medicare or SS.

Oh really.

If you buy health insurance no one is forced to pay the mandate tax. It can just as easily be a hypothetical imperative as the payroll taxes.

BoatShoes;1141498 wrote:If you buy health insurance no one is forced to pay the mandate tax. It can just as easily be a hypothetical imperative as the payroll taxes.

The question remains, is it constitutional for the government to force and individual to purchase a product? It's not a a hypothetical. People are not forced to purchase medicare or even pay the ss tax.

BoatShoes;1141495 wrote:The point is that the mechanism of action behind the mandate is hardly different than any other type of tax and you're potentially liable for any type of tax just by virtue of being a u.s. citizen.

And furthermore, Congress has required an individual citizen to make a purchase by virtue of being a u.s. citizen before!

The Second United States Congress...composed of founding fathers...passed the Militia Acts of 1792 which required all able bodied white males between 18-45 to purchase a weapon. But, no anti-federalists litigated it so we don't know whether or not the Supreme Court would have knocked it down. But considering it was the founding fathers who passed this law and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were around and didn't raise a stink and that George Washington invoked the law to shut down a tea party style protest over a Whiskey tax...Perhaps those on the right out to reconsider whether the Founding Fathers would be so outraged over an individual purchase mandate.

Weapons are a good thing ... because I'm buying it for myself and it becomes my property. I don’t see in the example you presented any intention for other citizens being forced to fund someone else weapon. Poor example bro

"The Second United States Congress...composed of founding fathers...passed the Militia Acts of 1792 which required all able bodied white males between 18-45 to purchase a weapon. But, no anti-federalists litigated it so we don't know whether or not the Supreme Court would have knocked it down. But considering it was the founding fathers who passed this law and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were around and didn't raise a stink and that George Washington invoked the law to shut down a tea party style protest over a Whiskey tax...Perhaps those on the right out to reconsider whether the Founding Fathers would be so outraged over an individual purchase mandate."

What the heck was that?

Manhattan Buckeye;1141540 wrote:"The Second United States Congress...composed of founding fathers...passed the Militia Acts of 1792 which required all able bodied white males between 18-45 to purchase a weapon. But, no anti-federalists litigated it so we don't know whether or not the Supreme Court would have knocked it down. But considering it was the founding fathers who passed this law and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were around and didn't raise a stink and that George Washington invoked the law to shut down a tea party style protest over a Whiskey tax...Perhaps those on the right out to reconsider whether the Founding Fathers would be so outraged over an individual purchase mandate."

What the heck was that?

Obama Supporter throws out alot if worthless shit just to see what sticks but they end up stepping in it also

Belly, you should go for that colonoscopy.....




Something crawled up urass and died for sure

Belly35;1141621 wrote:Obama Supporter throws out alot if worthless **** just to see what sticks but they end up stepping in it also

I've reference "doubling down on a loser" before. And to care the analogy further, it's also entertaining to see how they justify it, just like someone on their way to busting.

Devils Advocate;1141629 wrote:Belly, you should go for that colonoscopy.....




Something crawled up urass and died for sure

Already had colon cancer beat that battle and I'm good for the next 5 years so if I where you I would Go Litely

Belly35;1141641 wrote:Already had colon cancer beat that battle and I'm good for the next 5 years so if I where you I would Go Litely

Hope you are good for a lot longer than that; we're in for a long fight against these radicals.

BoatShoes;1141495 wrote:The Second United States Congress...composed of founding fathers...passed the Militia Acts of 1792 which required all able bodied white males between 18-45 to purchase a weapon.

Tremendous foresight on behalf of our predecessors in order to insure we could defend ourselves against our own government when they came with force to take our liberty. They knew the day would come; it appears to be here.

QuakerOats;1141748 wrote:Tremendous foresight on behalf of our predecessors in order to insure we could defend ourselves against our own government when they came with force to take our liberty. They knew the day would come; it appears to be here.

indeed

BoatShoes;1141076 wrote:Oh really. Well, Congress takes our money and forces us to use a product they provide for us called Medicare and requiring us to purchase health insurance is hardly different than taking our money and purchasing it for us. It is a difference in form and not substance.

Please let me know when you're going to show some intellectual coherency and start advocating the repeal of medicare because I have yet to see that from conservatives out there opposed to the mandate their party came up with.

I will stand up.... please repeal Medicare also.

In addition, if everyone who has paid into S.S. would have that $ paid into their own private account, instead of a Gov account, (and couldn't access it until age 62), people would be better off.

If you like S.S., why not add another Social surcharge to all wage earners and call it S.S. 2. That way when we have the fewer working, we can pay for the many (much more as baby boomers retire), and everyone will feel comfortable.

Pyramid Scheme from the beginning, and can't be undone without someone getting hosed! Someone will get hosed in the end, that's the way all pyramid schemes work/end.

Ghmothwdwhso;1142288 wrote:I will stand up.... please repeal Medicare also.

In addition, if everyone who has paid into S.S. would have that $ paid into their own private account, instead of a Gov account, (and couldn't access it until age 62), people would be better off.

If you like S.S., why not add another Social surcharge to all wage earners and call it S.S. 2. That way when we have the fewer working, we can pay for the many (much more as baby boomers retire), and everyone will feel comfortable.

Pyramid Scheme from the beginning, and can't be undone without someone getting hosed! Someone will get hosed in the end, that's the way all pyramid schemes work/end.

Before the hosing begins ..... How about cleaning up the Federal Programs, Local and State fraud also. Welfare Fraud, SS fraud, Entitlement fraud, Government spending fraud, federal bank lending fraud .... fix those program first. Then let’s look at who and how much hosing is required.
Why create another fraud potential program before fixing what is already poorly operated and fraud ridding operations? Can’t run and operate what is now present and in place why create another failure program?

Con_Alma;1141499 wrote:The question remains, is it constitutional for the government to force and individual to purchase a product? It's not a a hypothetical. People are not forced to purchase medicare or even pay the ss tax.

The Tax people pay if they self-insure is just as much a hypothetical imperative as a person paying the medicare tax if they work. It is not a categorical imperative.

If A Then B

If Work Then Pay Payroll Taxes

If Self-Insure Then Pay Obamacare Tax.

Manhattan Buckeye;1141540 wrote:
What the heck was that?

You claimed incorrectly that Congress for the first time has mandated a citizen purchase a product and consequently I demonstrated that the Founding Fathers required individuals to purchase a product.

Belly35;1141509 wrote:Weapons are a good thing ... because I'm buying it for myself and it becomes my property. I don’t see in the example you presented any intention for other citizens being forced to fund someone else weapon. Poor example bro

Not sure if you're being funny just because you're a gun enthusiast but in this situation it was an example of Congress requiring a private citizen to purchase a product for their own good as is generally they case with the personal responsibility provision in the affordable care act.

A law requiring you to pay for somebody else's weapon would be more analogous to Medicaid which already exists.

Belly35;1141100 wrote:Boatshoes I’m confused. You seem to be an admire of Milton Friedman economic but a supporter of the Obama Keynesian agenda. Supporter of Democrat Obama mentality for entitlement (Welfare Public Servant) but knowledgeable of its economic harm with the suggest for the State run program and not Federal run big government cluster fuck involvement .. Am I seeing a hint of Obama Disenchantment on your part or has reality set in ?

In actuality Milton Friedman was basically a keynesian when it came to using monetary policy to combat a recession and advocated that Japan do the same types of things 90's that the Federal Reserve is doing now...the kinds of things that makes conservatives these days claim that the FED chairman has engaged in treason...

And that is the point isn't it...that a genuine libertarian like Milton Friedman who wrote Free to Choose wouldn't be conservative enough for today's GOP.

BoatShoes;1145630 wrote:In actuality Milton Friedman was basically a keynesian when it came to using monetary policy to combat a recession and advocated that Japan do the same types of things 90's that the Federal Reserve is doing now...the kinds of things that makes conservatives these days claim that the FED chairman has engaged in treason...

I haven't really heard much rhetoric about the Fed engaging in treason. Perhaps from some of Paulbots that think a dinosaur like the gold standard is a good idea, despite not being remotely practical or feasible (or truly solving the real problem of deficit spending).

And there's a huge difference between interest rate policy and quantitative easing vs. the traditional keynesian support for deficit spending in a recession. The fed can clamp down on money supply growth in variety of ways any time it wants. Except for a couple of booming economic years, we've barely made a dent in repaying any of the deficits we've been accumulating. Those two courses of action are almost night and day different in terms of correction or unwinding/reversal.

gut;1145687 wrote:I haven't really heard much rhetoric about the Fed engaging in treason. Perhaps from some of Paulbots that think a dinosaur like the gold standard is a good idea, despite not being remotely practical or feasible (or truly solving the real problem of deficit spending).

And there's a huge difference between interest rate policy and quantitative easing vs. the traditional keynesian support for deficit spending in a recession. The fed can clamp down on money supply growth in variety of ways any time it wants. Except for a couple of booming economic years, we've barely made a dent in repaying any of the deficits we've been accumulating. Those two courses of action are almost night and day different in terms of correction or unwinding/reversal.

I mean Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul all openly criticized the FED during the presidential campaign. Rick Perry essentially threatened Ben Bernanke. I realize you're more of a Romney type guy but you at least must agree that much of the Republican electorate is against ZIRP, quantitative easing etc. Even Forbes magazine's commentators often trump up Austrian style ideas with regard to the FED.

I Agree that there is a substantial difference between combating Recessions with Fiscal vs. Monetary policy but there are a substantial amount of conservatives who are against even just using monetary policy to combat a recession.

BoatShoes;1146238 wrote: I Agree that there is a substantial difference between combating Recessions with Fiscal vs. Monetary policy but there are a substantial amount of conservatives who are against even just using monetary policy to combat a recession.

That's accurate. I just disagree the criticism was on the level of labeling it treason. Really all just more BS stemming from the whole class warfare and Wall Street welfare distractions. IMO, Fed policy targeting dual inflation & employment targets works - but Greenspan took a major hit to his legacy allowing the internet bubble to form and burst, and then Bernanke did basically the same thing leaving the punch bowl out long after the bankers were clearly falling over drunk. Some of that was definitely political (Fed being less and less independent) and is very much on point, but as with other issues I think there's been an overreaction to the role and value of the Fed. When fiscally irresponsible govts dictate policy, yeah it's a problem. But left to their own devices the major central banks DO contribute to stability. I think it's a step backward to eliminate or handcuff the Fed, but absolutely the wall between them and Washington does need to be resurrected.

The massive, MASSIVE deficit spending literally takes a torch to taxpayer wealth, current and future. That simply can't be undone. And there's nothing wrong with a little leverage used responsibly, or financing positive ROI growth projects...but that's where we've floored it over the cliff from Reaganomics and where many Keynesians have kind of lost their way. For years, globally, deficits defied the Austrian theory, but now I think pretty clearly the Keynesian model is floundering. To me that strongly suggests a middle ground, and one we've tread well past. Really no different than you see with companies or even individuals - there's a certain amount of debt/leverage that is productive, but it's not limitless, and not for govts, either.

gut;1146493 wrote:That's accurate. I just disagree the criticism was on the level of labeling it treason.

Rick Perry literally labeled it treasonous and that was when he was the front runner. It wasn't until he started saying reasonable things that he went by the wayside.

“If this guy prints more money between now and the election,” Perry said, “I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we — we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous — or treasonous in my opinion.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/rick-perry-on-ben-bernanke-it-would-be-almost-treasonous-to-print-more-money-between-now-and-the-ele/

BoatShoes;1145590 wrote:The Tax people pay if they self-insure is just as much a hypothetical imperative as a person paying the medicare tax if they work. It is not a categorical imperative.

If A Then B

If Work Then Pay Payroll Taxes

If Self-Insure Then Pay Obamacare Tax.

Maybe I'm not being clear. All people are not focred to pay into things like SS even if they work. This legislation forces all people to purchase a product.

Con_Alma;1146993 wrote:Maybe I'm not being clear. All people are not focred to pay into things like SS even if they work. This legislation forces all people to purchase a product.

You're looking at it the wrong way.

It requires you to pay an amount of money to the United States treasury if you engage in certain conduct just like any other host of taxes. If you self-insure, you pay a sum to the treasury. If you fill your tank with gas, you pay a sum to the treasury. If you buy cigarettes you pay a sum to the treasury, etc.

talking about it as a purchase mandate is really just a language game. It's economically the same as a tax credit but rather than have 90% of americans take the credit and 10% of americans not; 90% of Americans pay no extra tax and 10% who choose to engage in certain conduct do.

You're not "forced" to to buy insurance...you just have to pay more taxes if you choose to insure your own health rather than join the insurance risk pool.

Devils Advocate;1141629 wrote:Belly, you should go for that colonoscopy.....




Something crawled up urass and died for sure

He would be better off with an lobotomy.