Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[HubertGummer]

The solar system? Eventually, the U.S. will claim whatever planet I find and enslave it, too.

Yes, yes they will. Government is a naturally greedy beast that is not content until they have a large portion of your pie. Proof of this is how you can live in the middle of nowhere, then get forcibly annexed, and now you have more taxes to pay.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

About "general welfare", why did it take 150 years for elected government to figure out that it means congress has the power to tax and spend without limit? What makes you think "general welfare" applies to individuals? It is clear from the historical arguments, that for a long time, and even among the Hamiltonians, "general welfare" applies to the United States as a sovereign state, and not the whims of individuals. It means the federal government has the power to act in the interests of its own well being, but within the restrictions placed upon it by the constitution. It's only a recent phenom that people who wanted to buy other people's votes, abused the meaning to justify spending for any whim.

At this point, we are beyond constitutional spending. It is very unlikely that this will ever change to any meaningful extent. Your side has conned the nation into believing it is immoral not to confiscate other people's resources from people who've earned them, and redistribute them to others who haven't. The people who've done that over the past 50 years have now extracted all the money of the current generations, and now we're taking it from the future several generations.

If you think it's immoral not to confiscate the wealth of people who earned it, and give to people who didn't, I have a simple question to ask. Really, this is a collective question I ask of the left generally, not you specifically. If "you" can go to the polls and flip a lever to relieve your conscience so easily, why is it so difficult to click "donate" on a website to help the poor? Why must you vote to take it by force instead of putting your own money where your mouth is?

The left likes to remind us how wealthy they are: Left and Right coast elites are swimming in wealth. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Hollywood elites, and the list goes on and on. If you are so morally superior, why do you donate so little to the poor, compared with what you donate to politicians who promise to confiscate even more?

Why can't you guys put your own money where your mouth is? I've talked several times about a fantacy tax plan where everyone pays a modest flat rate income tax to pay for Madisonian constitutional expenditures, and beyond that, if you want the government to spend money on something, YOU right the check for it. I call that the put your money where your mouth is tax. No more pretending to be moral by flipping the lever for a politician who claims they'll end poverty by distributing more of earners wealth.

As for the nature of free markets, I'm not opposed to having courts settle disagreements about companies taking unfair advantage of the markets. But we'd need to make the court system more available to the small and less susceptible to the influence of the large.

This. All of this.

 

[Jludo]

You know as well as I do that if the Rs do away with Obamacare, the left will scream bloody murder about all these poor people that lost their free ride and now have to pay for it. The Rs will lose elections and when the D's get back in they will reinstall Obamacare and we will still be hosed.

Like I said, so as long as those leading us down the road to fiscal ruin have R's next to their names its ok.

 

[LPMan59]

OK. Thanks.

Yeah, we have a disagreement about the government's ability to tax (16th Amendment provides for same and is evidence of the assent of the people). We have disagreement about the government's role in providing for the common good (general welfare [preamble], tax and spend and uniformity clauses). We have a disagreement about history. We disagree about the nature of free markets.

I'm certain there are other things where we have disagreement.

That does not make me a radical liberal, communist, intellectual snob or any other such thing some have mentioned. It is a disagreement about the reasons people come together to form groups and states and countries. and the economic policies and practices necessary to keep a representative democracy afloat.

What I tend to see here among some is a form of rugged individualism that harkens to past heroes but has little to do with today. I'm not fond of slogans like "tax is theft". The 16th Amendment of the Constitution granted that power at the behest of Congress, 2/3rds of the states and a significant portion of electorate. The earth is not flat and taxation is not theft. The South lost the Civil War. Badly.

Having said that, it does not mean I support many of the social justice programs and initiatives that the democrats have gotten into law. Quite the contrary. As it relates to Obamacare, I believe that the cries for repeal without an alternative to replace the program is ill-considered.

Do I have an alternative? Why should I have one? We have a program. If the republicans don't like it, they can fix it. But we have as some have counted over 75 million with pre-existing conditions. I'm not personally affected, so I'm not worried about my ox being gored.

But, if you gore 75 million oxes, you'll have a stampede. I think Trump is smart enough to recognize that. But I think Congress is comprised primarily of morons.

Its more than a disagreement. It's a complete misunderstanding of what the constitution says and what it means. If you actually read the writings of the men who composed the general welfare clause, you'd see that your progressive interpretation is not even in the same sport, much less the same ballpark. The same goes for the second amendment. And the commerce clause. And....

but we live in a post constitutional world where words written in plain English don't mean what they say. Where fines are actually taxes. Where the legislators throw **** at the wall and see if sticks via the scotus.

de tocoquville (sp) was right.

 

[Alpo]

Its more than a disagreement. It's a complete misunderstanding of what the constitution says and what it means. If you actually read the writings of the men who composed the general welfare clause, you'd see that your progressive interpretation is not even in the same sport, much less the same ballpark. The same goes for the second amendment. And the commerce clause. And....

but we live in a post constitutional world where words written in plain English don't mean what they say. Where fines are actually taxes. Where the legislators throw **** at the wall and see if sticks via the scotus.

de tocoquville (sp) was right.

I'd be concerned that perhaps you were correct....except for all of the constitutional scholars and case law that doesn't agree with you.

 

[jamil]

I'd be concerned that perhaps you were correct....except for all of the constitutional scholars and case law that doesn't agree with you.

There is not a shortage of collectivist "constitutional scholars" this side of the welfare state.

 

[Alpo]

About "general welfare", why did it take 150 years for elected government to figure out that it means congress has the power to tax and spend without limit? What makes you think "general welfare" applies to individuals? It is clear from the historical arguments, that for a long time, and even among the Hamiltonians, "general welfare" applies to the United States as a sovereign state, and not the whims of individuals. It means the federal government has the power to act in the interests of its own well being, but within the restrictions placed upon it by the constitution. It's only a recent phenom that people who wanted to buy other people's votes, abused the meaning to justify spending for any whim.

At this point, we are beyond constitutional spending. It is very unlikely that this will ever change to any meaningful extent. Your side has conned the nation into believing it is immoral not to confiscate other people's resources from people who've earned them, and redistribute them to others who haven't. The people who've done that over the past 50 years have now extracted all the money of the current generations, and now we're taking it from the future several generations.

If you think it's immoral not to confiscate the wealth of people who earned it, and give to people who didn't, I have a simple question to ask. Really, this is a collective question I ask of the left generally, not you specifically. If "you" can go to the polls and flip a lever to relieve your conscience so easily, why is it so difficult to click "donate" on a website to help the poor? Why must you vote to take it by force instead of putting your own money where your mouth is?

The left likes to remind us how wealthy they are: Left and Right coast elites are swimming in wealth. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Hollywood elites, and the list goes on and on. If you are so morally superior, why do you donate so little to the poor, compared with what you donate to politicians who promise to confiscate even more?

Why can't you guys put your own money where your mouth is? I've talked several times about a fantacy tax plan where everyone pays a modest flat rate income tax to pay for Madisonian constitutional expenditures, and beyond that, if you want the government to spend money on something, YOU right the check for it. I call that the put your money where your mouth is tax. No more pretending to be moral by flipping the lever for a politician who claims they'll end poverty by distributing more of earners wealth.

As for the nature of free markets, I'm not opposed to having courts settle disagreements about companies taking unfair advantage of the markets. But we'd need to make the court system more available to the small and less susceptible to the influence of the large.

This is cant. Yes, that definition.

Let's assume for a second that none of the wealth "confiscated" is used to pay for social programs. It is solely used for purposes of warfare. And that might be appropriate since most of the neocons aren't warriors in the true sense but more than willing to sacrifice other people's sons (especially the poor) on the battelfield.

Why is it that conservative feel they have a right to eliminate birth control but are unwilling to support the offspring of such policies that result? Oh, you say stop screwing. Yeah. Like republicans don't.

 

[steveh_131]

Why is it that the right feels that have a right to eliminate birth control but is unwilling to support the offspring of such policies that result?

1. Nobody that I have ever met has supported a ban on birth control. If you can't afford a condom then you can't afford to have sex.

2. Christians are twice as likely to adopt a child, which is the proper way to support unwanted offspring.

 

[Alpo]

Go ahead and take the moral high ground Steve. Taxation is theft but the reproductive rights of others is something that you have a right to be involved in because: Jesus.

Utter nonsense.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

(Notice the attempt to derail the thread into another dead-end abortion thread...PLEASE, nobody rise to the bait).

 

[ATM]

(Notice the attempt to derail the thread into another dead-end abortion thread...PLEASE, nobody rise to the bait).

Are you suggesting that we avoid murder until theft and slavery are cleared up?

Far be it from me to take that bait.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Are you suggesting that we avoid murder until theft and slavery are cleared up?

Far be it from me to take that bait.

Heh!

 

[steveh_131]

Go ahead and take the moral high ground Steve.

I'm glad we agree that's what I'm doing.

Taxation is theft but the reproductive rights of others is something that you have a right to be involved in because: Jesus.

LOL I'm not taking the straw-man bait either.

 

[Alpo]

*sniff* could we have a moment of silence?

My wife cleaned out the TV cabinet and took my Highlander Boxed Set of VCR tapes to Goodwill.

There is no justice in this world!

 

[Kutnupe14]

*sniff* could we have a moment of silence?

My wife cleaned out the TV cabinet and took my Highlander Boxed Set of VCR tapes to Goodwill.

There is no justice in this world!

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_...t+movie&rh=i:aps,k:highlander+boxed+set+movie

 

[steveh_131]

 

[steveh_131]

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_...t+movie&rh=i:aps,k:highlander+boxed+set+movie

Isn't the free market grand?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Isn't the free market grand?

I wouldn't know. I've never seen what it looks like, but Amazon is the bee's knees.

 

[Alpo]

I hid my 8-track. She's gonna have to take that from my cold, dead hands.

 

[Alpo]

(Notice the attempt to derail the thread into another dead-end abortion thread...PLEASE, nobody rise to the bait).

There is a tendency to believe what other conservatives have said, so I don't blame you for jumping to the conclusion that reproductive rights means ABORTION.