5-4 Insurance Mandate Upheld

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing?[/quote]

Of course it affects everyone. Where does the government get the money to insure the millions that cannot afford insurance otherwise? It takes money from people who have earned it and redistributes it to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it.

You’re still an idiot!
[/quote]

ZEB,

As always you keep it classy. So the answer is of course one of your typical right wing talking points. You have no more knowledge of what will happen than anyone else, but somehow you are sure YOU will be getting screwed. Fantastic detective work ZEB, did you have to read a whole page of Drudge or Breitbart, or in lieu of reading (because it is soooo fucking hard) did you just lay on the floor in the fetal position while you listened to Fox news tell you the future as they see it. Next time just say “I have no fucking clue” at least you wouldn’t seem so dense. [/quote]

Somehow, I do not think that it is a “talking point”, right wing or otherwise, that money is extracted from him at gunpoint and given to other people who did nothing to deserve it.

That is, like, a fact.

[/quote]

Orion,

The problem with bitching about a tax issue is that people that bitch about taxes aren’t really bitching about taxes, they are bitching about taxes they don’t like or more specifically taxes being used for something they don’t agree with (ex. insuring the lazy on my dime) but they never seem to bitch about the taxes paying for a fireman rescuing their kids, or a policeman recovering their stolen goods. You very rarely see a person on the right complaining about the tax dollars going to create a super strong military, but you will always see them complaining that their tax dollars are going to give some lazy prick a colonoscopy (discovering the cancer early and saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment bills). The facts are that we (you, me) have no idea whether the ACA will be a success or failure, a money saver or loser, we have no idea if it will be an unltimately successful program (or lead to a more successful program). At the moment the right is sure of one thing only, the ACA is the brainchild of the black, Kenyan, Socialist, closet Muslim and it must be attacked at all costs.
[/quote]

You think the police will get you your stuff back?

Cereally?

Also, the things you mentioned are pretty much all public services, which do have an element of redistribution but are not there for the expressed purpose of redistribution.

There is a profound difference between “firemen will take care of other peoples houses too, no matter what they pay in taxes” and “I will take that and give it to someone else, fuck you”.

202

[quote]Waylon wrote:
Beans, whether it is a “deduction” for retirement investments or a “penalty” for not having health insurance, at the end of the day my tax bill is higher if I do not engage in said behavior. You can call it a penalty, tax, deduction, toll, or a widget - I really don’t care. A dollar is a dollar and the difference IS purely semantic.
[/quote]

No its not.

Beeecause… drumroll… 50% of all people pay no federal income tax. Actually more, because some people have no job.

203

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
The facts are that we (you, me) have no idea whether the ACA will be a success or failure, a money saver or loser, we have no idea if it will be an unltimately successful program (or lead to a more successful program).[/quote]

This is true. Without a time machine, we don’t know for sure. However, we can look at similar things (ie RomneyCare in Mass) and come to the educated conclusion that this is going to be a clusterfuck that is going to hurt the middle class, and most of poor. Get out of la la land.

204

Orion, very low incomes are exempt.

205

[quote]Waylon wrote:
Orion, very low incomes are exempt.[/quote]

All that pay no federal income tax?

Because, if not, the whole “it makes no difference” does not fly, not even financially.

206

[quote]Waylon wrote:

Zeb, as far as liberal controlled time period that some might consider moderately successful - From 1931 to 1981 the Dems controlled both houses of Congress (except 1 R, 1 split) and the white house the majority of the time. Even R president Eisenhower would be considered a raging liberal by today’s standards. Considering this was time period the middle class as we know it came in to existence, some poeple in that economic class may see it as a successful time.[/quote]

Wrong, wrong absolutely wrong!

FDR was a resounding economic failure! He began the big government that we have today. I would list the social programs that he began but I don’t have the time or inclination and I doubt you would dispute them anyway, so use google.

Harry Truman other than his obvious use of atomic weapons was a non entity.

Dwight Eisenhower A REPUBLICAN served two consecutive terms during one of the (economically) best times in the history of our country.

JFK would have been thrown out of our current democratic party for being too conservative. As the current democratic party has moved so far left that it borders on a socialist party. Want examples? Just ask.

LBJ, no question the worst modern day President (Tied with Obama). The expansion of the Vietnam war and his great war on poverty where he spent billions to eradicate poverty. But hefound out too late of course that when you give people money that only encourages them to keep taking the free money and not work. Today we have a welfare state that we do largely because of LBJ.

The economy was mostly strong under republican Nixon and we all know that Jimmy Carter the second worst President in modern times was a nightmare. Interest rates under carter hit 18%, inflation way up, unemployment nearly 8%. (the people punished him by electing Ronald Reagan) and of course gasoline lines.

And of course Ronald Reagan, who, by lowering tax rates to their lowest in mondern times created about 20 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs!

As I said liberalism has failed time after time. But as the democrats are elected promising everything to everyone we continue to move forward with this failed form of government.

National health care where the government controls 1/6th of the economy will prove to be the single worst move that a President has ever taken. And should Obama win reelection he will undoubtedly usher in a generation of republican Presidents.

207

Zeb, the legacy of Fdr can be debated, destroyer of America for conservatives and greatest president in history for liberals. While I am sure you are 100% convinced his policies (wich were largely copied in post war Europe) were a failure, this is hardly a settled issue among economists.

I am well aware Dwight D. was a republican, that was what the R in front of his name was meant to denote. Many conservatives hold a very low opinion of him beacause he continued and expanded much of FDR’s policies. (Although many historians attribute this to the influence of Nixon.)

As for the current democratic party moving left, I don’t see it. If you read the writings of the great R pres Teddy Roosevelt on taxes and corporations, he was more liberal than Obama in many respects.

We can debate the effects/ merits of individual policies, but if one simply looks at party control and it’s effects on things like the debt, upward mobility and the strength of the middle class then this is an example of successful liberal control. Many would even consider this to be the most successful time period in US history, especially considering it began at what many would consider the worst time in our history.

208

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

You know what, this isn’t like a frog in water scenario…The freedoms that the founding fathers realized and invisioned as iternal and unwavering were not wrought from the inconvenience of large government, the freedoms they speak of were created under the immense heat and pressure of an intolerable dictatorship. Americans are so entitled that we have forgotten what it truly means to have our rights taken away. As such, we naturally think that an insurance mandate is unconstitutional. I call bullshit. The ACA might not be convenient, it might not be perfect, but damn it were not in captivity.

Thanks.

[/quote]

Incorrect. 1775 - 1776 Great Britain was in no way a dictatorship. It was ruled by a king and a parliament partnership, in a manner of speaking, and the colonies were afforded a significant amount of local rule.

It could easily be argued that when the colonies rebelled against their mother country the level of oppression and intrusiveness by the central government would be absolutely dwarfed by what 21st century Americans experience now.

The frog in the boiling pot analogy works perfectly here. Exquisitely perfect.
[/quote]
Whatever you say, I don’t claim to be a historian nor do I claim to understand the context or meaning of a random Benjamin Franklin quote made into a poster. I can guess, but apparently I would guess differently than you.

I still think your logic is poor. I would enjoy you making the argument that 21st century American living is so much worse than late 18th century American living. Please, if the argument is so easy, go ahead…

And also, I hate to say this but if you truly believe that the level of opression that the colonists faced would be dwarfed by what your facing now, does that mean according to your own quote that your not worthy of liberty? I don’t see you forming an army.

209

[quote]Waylon wrote:
Zeb, the legacy of Fdr can be debated, destroyer of America for conservatives and greatest president in history for liberals. While I am sure you are 100% convinced his policies (wich were largely copied in post war Europe) were a failure, this is hardly a settled issue among economists.[/quote]

What did I say? He ushered in big government and…big government IS a failure! It fails us every day by taking more of our money and rights. I wonder what size house has to fall on some of you liberals before you actually feel something?

Ike was a small government conservative who ran with tiny deficits. The popular notion is that Ike was liberal compared to today’s Tea Party,. But one can say the same thing for JFK compared to today’s democratic party. I do agree both parties have moved away from the center. But you only hear about the republicans and the Tea Party. For some reason the media shy’s away from mentioning the fact that the dems have moved left. Gee I wonder why? Could it be the same reason that they gave Obama a free pass when he ran for President?

There might be a reason for that, you could be blind.

Tell me how many democrats were pro abortion 50 years ago?

How many were pro homosexual marriage?

You’re a funny man.

Yeah…this is the most successful time in the history of the country (eye roll). Drink more of that Obama kool aide my friend. Ha ha…15 trillion in debt, 14 million more people on food stamps since the idiot took office. Unemployment over 8% for a record 38 months in a row. And with this disastrous health care plan now law a government take over of 1/6th of the economy.

It’s absolutely the worst time in modern history for our country. But keep chugging that Obama-aid and make sure you keep your eye’s closed when you do because it’s a damn awful sight for those of us who have actually lived through far better times and recognize disaster when we see it.

210

Zeb, obviously my post was not clear, the " time in history" it refers to was 1931-1981, as per the example you asked for. ( When liberals had virtuall domination for 50 years.) Was “big government” a fauilure during the 50’s - 60’s? Was the post war recovery in Europe a failure because of “big government.” Focusing on very recent history alone can give us a distorted perspective. I agree things now are less than ideal. This country has shifted to the right in the last 30+ years, that is a fact. In this time period we have gone from near total Dem control to a majority Rep pres and splitting control of Congress. If you step back, look at the larger picture and long term trends things look very different.

211

Orion,

The “50% of Americans pay no federal income tax” blast is a little overdone. Of that 50% (46% actually) it breaks down like this:

50% of them work, but make incomes insufficient to pay federal income taxes, this could be due to income in relation to family size, or just having a shitty job, however they still pay payroll taxes and the hundreds of other taxes we encounter every year.

22% are seniors on Social Security where their benefits are tax free (although they did pay lots of taxes to earn those benefits)

15% are getting breaks from the EITC, Child Tax Credit etc.

10% fall into some various form of did not work, college student, college grad but unemployed, various other states of non-earner etc.

Of course we all pay taxes, sales taxes, phone taxes, cable taxes, various payroll taxes etc. Only a very few select slugs get away with paying absolutely nothing, and honestly you don’t want to trade places with them.

212

ZEB,

Near as I can tell the only right you have lost is the right to not have insurance. You actually still have that right, you will just pay a tax for not having it. Coming from a guy that doesn’t want to let gays get married or adopt and wants to take away a woman’s right to choose, your whine of “They’re taking my rights” sounds particularly slow witted.

213

[quote]Waylon wrote:
Beans, whether it is a “deduction” for retirement investments or a “penalty” for not having health insurance, at the end of the day my tax bill is higher if I do not engage in said behavior. You can call it a penalty, tax, deduction, toll, or a widget - I really don’t care. A dollar is a dollar and the difference IS purely semantic.
[/quote]

You seem like an intelligent guy, based on your other posts, even if our opinions don’t line up with mine or facts, so I’m trying to be respectful here:

You can walk down to the local watering hole and talk like this, and people will more than likely think you are enlightened and maybe even a bad ass because of your “I don’t give a fuck” type approach. But if you spoke like this at the bar inside a Del Frisco’s or, god forbid, around my clients, they would more than likely look at you funny and, at the very least, dismiss you as miss-informed.

So… Go on believing whatever you like. I’m in no position to stop you from sounding like you don’t understand contemporary American taxation.

If anyone needs me to explain the difference again, I can copy/paste from the other thread.

214

[quote]Waylon wrote:
Zeb, obviously my post was not clear, the " time in history" it refers to was 1931-1981, as per the example you asked for. ( When liberals had virtuall domination for 50 years.) Was “big government” a fauilure during the 50’s - 60’s?[/quote]

Take a look at the size of government compared to today. We did NOT have big government in the 50’s and 60’s far, far from it! And that’s one reason we succeeded.

But you said they were really good in your previous post. Which is it? Are they really good or less than ideal?

I think the country has always been center right that hasn’t changed much.

Because 50 years ago both parties were closer ideologically. Today they are further apart than they’ve ever been. In other words, 50 years ago many democrats were quite conservative. Today however if you want to be a member of the democratic party you have to cow tow to many leftists ideals. I won’t rattle them off but they are far from how main stream America thinks.

215

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,

Near as I can tell the only right you have lost is the right to not have insurance. You actually still have that right, you will just pay a tax for not having it. Coming from a guy that doesn’t want to let gays get married or adopt and wants to take away a woman’s right to choose, your whine of “They’re taking my rights” sounds particularly slow witted.[/quote]

And your response to the subject at hand is pretty damn off the mark.

Your claim: “Nothing changes you get free insurance.”

My claim: Many taxes will go up, and new ones created, to pay for national health insurance. Because, are you ready B r i a n? When the government gives something to someone it has to take something away from someone else. And you’ve not countered that point to date.

Your response: “You’re against a woman’s right to choose so there…and gay adoption.”

Brilliant!

You cannot address the topic because you have no answer to my points so you use a straw man argument.

Yes…you’re still an idiot.

216

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I wonder what size house has to fall on some of you liberals before you actually feel something?

[/quote]

It better not be too big, or they’ll pass a luxury item tax and make anybody who owns one pay dearly. All while clicking their heels together and chanting “there’s no tax on homes…”.

[/insane tangent]

217

Beans, I appreciate trying to be respectful. If you have some information you would like to share, please do.

Zeb, apparently I am unable to say anything clearly as seems every post is misunderstood. (Oddly I don’t have this problem on a daily basis) We did not have “big government” in the 50’s - 60’s in the same way as today. This is true, the world has changed. If you put two people on a dessert island they can be pretty informal, put thirty thousand on that island and you are probably going to need a pretty extensive and detailed system to make it work. This is not an excuse for unlimited growth and intrusion but some increases are a practical reality. I am not exactly sure how FDR ushered in "big government"but it didn’t begin till…Carter, Clinton, Obama? (You will have tell me when “big government” started.)
I never said This was a good time, please refer to the first line in my previous post. This whole exchange started because you asked for an example of a successful period of liberal control. I have been referring to this time period. (Wich happens to be the longest, most concentrated period of single party power in history, and was arguably the most successful.)

As for the shift to the right, this has happened from '81 till now and is a matter of verifiable political fact.

I am honestly not trying to be a Dick, but it seems like you are not actually reading my posts. If they are so absurdly stupid as to not be worth your time, then please dismiss them as moronic dribble. If you are going to respond to them I would ask the courtesy of taking the time to really read them. Thanks

218

The U.S. has been infected with Socialism/Jacobinism since the French Revolution. But the modern welfare state traces back to the work of Columbia University professor Henry Rogers Seager and the depression. During the depression FDR appointed a handpicked committee and acted on its recommendations completely changing the relationship of the individual to government.

FDR: “Economic security was attained in the earlier days through the interdependence of members of families upon each other and of the families within a small community upon each other.”

FDR was right there. Before the destruction of the family unit small towns and municipalities largely governed themselves and were left to themselves.

FDR created an illusion that social security was a form of “insurance” in which “contributions” were made to a “trust” from which they would receive an “earned benefit.” As Milton Friedman explained:

‘To preserve the fiction that Social Security is insurance, federal government interest-bearing bonds of a corresponding amount have been deposited in a so-called trust fund. That is, one branch of government, the Treasury, has given an interest-bearing IOU to another branch, the Social Security Administration additional IOUs to cover the interest due. The only way that the Treasury can redeem its debt to the Social Security Administration is to borrow money from the public, run a surplus in its other activities or have the Federal Reserve print the money - the same alternatives that would be open to it to pay Social Security benefits if there were no trust fund. But the accounting sleight-of-hand of a bogus trust fund is counted on to conceal this fact from a gullible public.’

The question is why the welfare state was not controlled/peeled back after the depression/war ended. Why it began to grow exponentially from the late 60’s.

219

Don’t let Bloomberg near this type of shit, or he will tax you for eating salt, or not eating broccoli.

I swear, the panzy-ass-ness of this country is at an all-time high. I think we should have an auto-shipment of Kotex sent to Democrats each month.

220

“…the Statist has always considered Social Security the foundation for building his counterrevolution. Roosevelt and a relatively small band of cronies, most of whom came from academia and the labor movement and worked their will in the halls of the bureaucracy and Congress - usually out of public view - had wanted to include government-run universal health care as part of Social Security. But it was seen as too politically ambitious even for an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. They knew if they persisted incrementally, however, manipulating public information and perceptions and adding more and more people to Social Security’s rolls, over time they would achieve their ends.” - Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin