QuakerOats;1496401 wrote:Good. Since government runs a deficit that means less pressure on taxpayers and private sector employers. Government can either get efficient, or start eliminating itself.

So, private companies shedding jobs is good?
Because it is both, the public sector retiring, and private contracts not being renewed.
And, you rail against the unemployment rate being too high....

QuakerOats;1496400 wrote:You mean it is billions of IOU's not being peddled by another insolvent government.

You are so far into the kool-aid it is comical.

You need to watch these videos over and over and over again until your brain is forced to stop peddling this nonsense.

There is no issue of solvency and zero probability of default. It is a non sequitur to say the U.S. is insolvent. The U.S. can pay any liability denominated in u.s. dollars. It's just crediting bank accounts. The dollars to even buy u.s. treasury securities must have first ultimately be preceded government spending any way as a matter of logic.

[video=youtube;h3cY6_z0ceg][/video]

[video=youtube;GdOsybbBVEU][/video]

[video=youtube;O4FOMKPXsGM][/video]


^^^Two card carrying republicans!

BoatShoes;1496377 wrote:Obamacare is actually not marxist at all but a conservative way to generate actual valuable competition amongst insurers rather than simply trying to only insure healthy people. It was a great idea and a credit to the Heritage Foundation and the conservative movement which used to have good ideas for generating a way toward universal insurance w/o single-payer.

"while premiums vary across the country, they are generally lower than expected"

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/early-look-at-premiums-and-participation-in-marketplaces.pdf

Thanks to conservatives of 90's!

So forcing someone to buy something they may not want to spend money on is perfectly democtratic?

$7 TRILLION in DEFICIT spending = Record 90,473,000 Not in Labor Force...





Class dismissed.

jmog;1496425 wrote:So forcing someone to buy something they may not want to spend money on is perfectly democtratic?

Ask John Roberts. Congress doesn't have the power to compel someone to buy something, spend money or otherwise engage in interstate commerce.

Congress does clearly have the power to tax. The so-called "mandate" is a tax on people who are irresponsible and don't purchase healthcare in the event that their employer doesn't provide it, etc.

Congress regularly taxes all kinds of behavior with negative externalities....smoking, drinking, using gasoline, going tanning...taxing individuals who don't purchase health insurance is no different. And, this was agreed to through representative democracy!

And, fwiw marxism/communism is wholly "democratic" in a sense...it is the silly idea that people wholly and cooperatively produce things voluntarily in free association with one another...generally anyway. It's the opposite of capitalism moreso than democracy.

QuakerOats;1496440 wrote:$7 TRILLION in DEFICIT spending = Record 90,473,000 Not in Labor Force...





Class dismissed.

LOL we've produced $75 trillion or so worth of goods and services during that time period Dr. Evil. Keep watching those videos. You've got years and years of pent up derp that needs to be dislodged.

BoatShoes;1496473 wrote: Congress does clearly have the power to tax.

Based on their power and willingness to abuse it yes. As a constitutional matter, not nearly as clear.

queencitybuckeye;1496477 wrote:Based on their power and willingness to abuse it yes. As a constitutional matter, not nearly as clear.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

[INDENT]The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
[/INDENT]

Plain language that is unambiguous.

BoatShoes;1496478 wrote:Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1



Plain language that is unambiguous.

Plain language in direct conflict with the notion that Congress felt it had to pass an amendment to allow an income tax. Nothing ambiguous with the words, plenty of ambiguity as a practical matter. Just like our rights, those of Congress are also limited.

QuakerOats;1496400 wrote:You mean it is billions of IOU's not being peddled by another insolvent government.

You are so far into the kool-aid it is comical.

I've noticed that the people most fond of saying that other people are "drinking the kool-aid" seem to be the people on the other side who seem, to a rational person, to be pounding their flavor of that stuff like crazy.

And there's definitive proof.

queencitybuckeye;1496481 wrote:Plain language in direct conflict with the notion that Congress felt it had to pass an amendment to allow an income tax. Nothing ambiguous with the words, plenty of ambiguity as a practical matter. Just like our rights, those of Congress are also limited.

Exactly. Boat thinks none of the rest of that stuff in Article I section 8 matters. I don't know why the framers didn't just stop after the first clause and save some ink.

majorspark;1496484 wrote:Exactly. Boat thinks none of the rest of that stuff in Article I section 8 matters. I don't know why the framers didn't just stop after the first clause and save some ink.

If they'd done that, it wouldn't have taken 230+ years to figure out what the people already knew, that we as individuals have the right to own guns.

queencitybuckeye;1496481 wrote:Plain language in direct conflict with the notion that Congress felt it had to pass an amendment to allow an income tax. Nothing ambiguous with the words, plenty of ambiguity as a practical matter. Just like our rights, those of Congress are also limited.

It was because the courts ruled that the income tax was a essentially just like a direct tax that couldn't be avoided. In NFIB v. Sebelius Roberts ruled that the tax on people who don't purchase health insurance was not a direct tax.

majorspark;1496484 wrote:Exactly. Boat thinks none of the rest of that stuff in Article I section 8 matters. I don't know why the framers didn't just stop after the first clause and save some ink.

No. For example, it is very clear that the founders did not grant a general police power and reserved that to the states. Having the power to spend for the general is not the same as being able to regulate the health, safety, welfare and morals of the people. That is why I SMH when so called "constitutionalists" like Michelle Bachmann introduce federal anti-abortion bills when there Congress plainly doesn't have a police power based on their own method of constitutional interpretation.

BoatShoes;1496473 wrote:Ask John Roberts. Congress doesn't have the power to compel someone to buy something, spend money or otherwise engage in interstate commerce.

Congress does clearly have the power to tax. The so-called "mandate" is a tax on people who are irresponsible and don't purchase healthcare in the event that their employer doesn't provide it, etc.

Congress regularly taxes all kinds of behavior with negative externalities....smoking, drinking, using gasoline, going tanning...taxing individuals who don't purchase health insurance is no different. And, this was agreed to through representative democracy!

And, fwiw marxism/communism is wholly "democratic" in a sense...it is the silly idea that people wholly and cooperatively produce things voluntarily in free association with one another...generally anyway. It's the opposite of capitalism moreso than democracy.

So the President, who pushes this legislation 100%, says it is NOT a tax. The democratic Congress who passed it said it is NOT a tax. The LANGUAGE OF THE BILL says it's not a tax. But when they change their mind AFTER THE FACT in the SCOTUS hearings because they KNOW they are going to lose if it is seen as a mandate...it suddently becomes a tax?

There is NO WAY you can use that argument that they called it a tax when they passed it, so therefore, regardless of what they construed to the SCOTUS, you can't use that argument now.

So, we are back to the same question, can a democratically elected representative government mandate that I buy something I may or may not want?

Don't give me the hogwash about the tax that wasn't a tax until they decided they would lose and then it became a tax.

jmog;1496499 wrote:So the President, who pushes this legislation 100%, says it is NOT a tax. The democratic Congress who passed it said it is NOT a tax. The LANGUAGE OF THE BILL says it's not a tax. But when they change their mind AFTER THE FACT in the SCOTUS hearings because they KNOW they are going to lose if it is seen as a mandate...it suddently becomes a tax?

There is NO WAY you can use that argument that they called it a tax when they passed it, so therefore, regardless of what they construed to the SCOTUS, you can't use that argument now.

So, we are back to the same question, can a democratically elected representative government mandate that I buy something I may or may not want?

Don't give me the hogwash about the tax that wasn't a tax until they decided they would lose and then it became a tax.

You don't have your facts straight. The solicitor general Don Verrilli never argued that it was a tax. Obama and Congress didn't call it a tax and they were wrong that it wasn't a tax and they made sure not to call it that for political reasons but the SCOTUS has the final say and they ruled that it is a tax...which it always should've been construed that way but the politicians didn't want to describe it accurately based on its economic effects because they didn't want it to be used against them in the elections.

I'll say it again. The democrat politicians never called it a tax (they should have) and the adminstration never argued it was a tax (they should have).

So, your question is invalid and the SCOTUS answered. It is beyond the powers of congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce to mandate that you buy something. They can however, levy indirect excise taxes on certain transactions and behaviors.

So, as to your last sentence...it is hogwash. You don't know the facts. The administration nor the politicians called it a tax. It was the SCOTUS that ruled that it was a tax. I happen to believe that the SCOTUS was correct in their interpretation and if you go back and read the threads, I made that argument all along.

Don't you remember the op-eds...that it was now on the Republicans and Romney to take what Roberts had given them and argue that Obama raised taxes on people...while also praising Roberts for limiting the commerce clause....the Krauthammer and George Will op-eds come to mind.

Have to agree with Boat on this one. Doesn't matter what the Dems said about it, SCOTUS ruled it a tax so it's a tax.

Did they err in their ruling? Perhaps. It's a little unsettling that SCOTUS rulings are not unanimous. Politics aside, the law is sufficiently complex and vague that the highest legal authorities in the land can't agree. Maybe there should be a higher threshold for rulings on policy affecting the daily lives of millions of Americans.

Just look at Obamacare - ramrodded thru Congress with a technical end-around, and then squeaked past SCOTUS on a 5-4 ruling. That screams bad policy, at least as written.

BoatShoes;1496476 wrote:LOL we've produced $75 trillion or so worth of goods and services during that time period Dr. Evil. Keep watching those videos. You've got years and years of pent up derp that needs to be dislodged.

Comical. The numbers completely trash your support of the marxist propaganda.

BoatShoes;1496494 wrote:No. For example, it is very clear that the founders did not grant a general police power and reserved that to the states. Having the power to spend for the general is not the same as being able to regulate the health, safety, welfare and morals of the people.

So you agree the taxing and spending power of congress is qualified by other text contained in the constitution. So its really not so unambiguous. Anyways I am amused at this power to spend for the "general". What the hell does that mean? That is about as ambiguous as it gets. Why then did the founders even bother enumerating the powers of congress? The purpose of which would seem to me to erase any ambiguity.

BoatShoes;1496494 wrote:That is why I SMH when so called "constitutionalists" like Michelle Bachmann introduce federal anti-abortion bills when there Congress plainly doesn't have a police power based on their own method of constitutional interpretation.

I SMH at these people as well. But when the federal Judicial branch foists its will upon this nation of 300+ million people, numbers of them are going to elect representatives that will seek to use the federal government to act in kind. That said their are many on the right like the left seek to use federal power to make all 300+ million of us conform. That is the problem.

Everyone has their personal convictions. Many times they collect in certain geographical areas. I believe that human intervention in pregnancy with the purpose of ending it before its full term is the ending of a human life and gay marriage is immoral. Using the power of government to enforce my will especially at the federal level would not be productive and would create division and strife and would be against how our constitution is structured. 300+ million people will never agree with me. I am content to live side by side with those with differing moral convictions within the sovereign state and local government structure. Many are not.

I will seek to change individuals minds that enter my sphere of influence. I will vote with my moral convictions when it matters. When I know a candidate has little bearing on that its not the driving factor for me. Nationalizing these social issue causes many voters to focus on them rather than management of the nation on an economic or defense matters. Which is the primary purpose of the federal government.

QuakerOats;1496637 wrote:Comical. The numbers ...

That's usually where Boat stops reading

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/10/america-must-stop-obamacare-now-before-it-becomes-hazardous-to-our-health/


Bingo

Lol "Public education campaign". No, it's an ad campaign for the Heritage Foundation's goals.

I Wear Pants;1499431 wrote:Lol "Public education campaign". No, it's an ad campaign for the Heritage Foundation's goals.

Ironic of course because the Heritage Foundation invented Obamacare!

Yes, just like Algore invented the internet.

QuakerOats;1499458 wrote:Yes, just like Algore invented the internet.

Al Gore didn't invent the internet but Heritage was definitely the origin of Obamacare.


http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

Page 6. "mandate all households obtain adequate insurance"