Jump to content

Obamacare vs. the U.S. Constitution


NDFan4Life
 Share

Recommended Posts

OKay Rock. I get it. All poor people are poor because of their own failings. They are just lazy and shiftless. If they would just work a little harder...

 

 

That lower income people pay more for health care as a percentage of their income than higher income earners is not a huge news story. Obviously!! Duh.-

that's not the point of the article - it's the astronomical and uncontrollable rise in the percentage that is so alarming. - You say they should just go to night school- well night school costs money- money they have less of because of the escalating healthcare costs.-

You can't pay for healthcare, support a family and go to night school on what you make at McDonald's. Can't be done.

 

Maybe they could work three shifts a day at Mcds and go to night school. Of course no one would be home to raise their kids. But kids should grow up and take care of themselves if their parents are so poor. I mean what are they waiting for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What did Reagan do that was "socialist." Reagan worked hard by first cutting taxes, firing the federal air traffic controllers union, decreased the size of social government, increased the military budget because Carter had left it in shambles. He got government off of our backs.

 

How is, in Obama's words, "redistributive justice" not socialist? How is "spreading the wealth" not socialist? How is taking over a private corporation and firing its CEO not socialist? How is taxing the rich more than they already pay (the top 1% pay more than the bottom 90%) not socialist? How is a confiscatory progressive tax system not socialist? (A plank in Marx's Communist writings)

 

Capitalism is about prosperity and freedom of the individual while socialism is about big government distribution of "fairness" by coercion.

 

Obama is clearly a socialist. His policies, his speeches, his desire to have free health care for all are socialist policies where you by coercion take from the producers and give to the nonproducers. This is not only immoral but it is what all tyrannical dictators and failed socialist countries have tried. It rewards sloth and punishes success. Take a look at the plank of the socialist party in the U.S. - it reads like an Obama speech. What they want, he wants.

 

The government does not have Constitutional authority to fine me or anyone else if they choose not to have health insurance yet our socialist-in-chief wants to do just that.

 

Socialism doesn't work, never has, never will.

 

As Maggie Thatcher said, "the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of eveyone else's money."

 

She got that right.

 

Anyone who doesn't think Obama is a socialist hasn't studied the subject or any world history and is completely ignorant of economics, human behavior, and how and why capitalism is the greatest system on the face of the earth for increasing everyone's standard of living - if they are willing to work hard and do what they can and should do for themselves to become self-sufficient rather than to be a parasite waiting for a handout from others. People like you and Obama naively and falsely think poor people are poor because rich people are rich. And liberals have been shown to be among the stingiest people on the face of the earth when it comes to giving charity. Take Joe Biden for example. For over nearly a decade when he earned over $200,000 per year, he gave a measly $365 per year to charity; yet, he has the audacity to tell Americans that they don't pay enough taxes to help the less fortunate. That's the hypocrisy of the left - of people like you. You are very compassionate with MY money. Well you and your socialist buddies don't have the right to go beyond the Constitutional function of the federal government to confiscate my money for your useless giveaway programs that end up hurting the very people you think you are helping. We've had enough of you socialists and in November you will hear from us just like they heard from others like us in Massachusetts who love this country and their personal liberty.

 

How's that for my own thoughts?

 

1. Let's go back to the early 1980's. In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

 

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

 

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

 

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

 

How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.

 

The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?

 

Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.

 

http://www.truthout.org/032009R

 

This was a Op-Ed, but please dispell any of this.

 

Also Reagan On public Housing

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19810604&id=hv8sAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Vs0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6299,1515390

 

Your comments were generic right wing talking points. Nothing I haven't heard.

 

It's in the bill. Read it.

 

I thought you promised your last word a few posts ago. LOL!

 

No death panels are in the bill. In fact, it is sought as the biggest lie last year by many politcal websites (not liberal either.) Its bullshit. And yes dude is right the ultimate death panel is your insurance company.

 

Yeah, but I have a choice which insurance company. When the gubmint takes over health care, I won't.

So it's called a death panel when insurance companies are involved in this but not death panels when the gubmint gets involved in counseling and end of life decisions?

 

Yeah great choices you have Aetna, Blue Cross, and United. Nice.

 

You believe Micheal Malkin blogs that post here?:llama::llama:

 

You do and that automatically gives you a loss! Michelle* Malkin never rings true.

 

This has been an interesting read. So far we have Obama is not a socialist but Reagan was, 60 people dying each day because they lack health insurance, the recession is over due to the stimulus, and the healthcare bill submitted has a plan that enables us to choose insurance options but one option we won't have is to decline it.

 

There has to be a punch line somewhere.

 

I am not sayin Reagan was, I am simply stating if Obama is Reagan was even more a socialist. Many people do die because of lack of health care this is proven. I can research a link if you would like. But I am sure the WHO, CDC, UN, and all the other organizations are ran by Liberals. It's the conservatives against the world!!

 

 

 

RockneDrive A.K.A The person who spends all day posting crap bashing Liberals...Or what I would call a person so blinded by Idealogy that it ooozes out of there pores....

 

Hes like 65, white, and watches Fox. The ultimate sterotype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Let's go back to the early 1980's. In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

 

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

 

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

 

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

 

How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.

 

The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?

 

Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.

 

http://www.truthout.org/032009R

 

This was a Op-Ed, but please dispell any of this.

 

Also Reagan On public Housing

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19810604&id=hv8sAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Vs0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6299,1515390

 

Your comments were generic right wing talking points. Nothing I haven't heard.

 

 

 

No death panels are in the bill. In fact, it is sought as the biggest lie last year by many politcal websites (not liberal either.) Its bullshit. And yes dude is right the ultimate death panel is your insurance company.

 

 

 

Yeah great choices you have Aetna, Blue Cross, and United. Nice.

 

 

 

You do and that automatically gives you a loss! Michelle* Malkin never rings true.

 

 

 

I am not sayin Reagan was, I am simply stating if Obama is Reagan was even more a socialist. Many people do die because of lack of health care this is proven. I can research a link if you would like. But I am sure the WHO, CDC, UN, and all the other organizations are ran by Liberals. It's the conservatives against the world!!

 

 

 

 

 

Hes like 65, white, and watches Fox. The ultimate sterotype.

 

Haha....Great post..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just about giving insurance to the poor.

 

To be self insured is almost impossible in this current system.

 

I'm no expert but... I talked to my doctor about this insurance issue. He said that the insurance companies these days are a money making monopoly. It's a racket. There are only a few of them, and they know how to rip everyone off.

 

They only insure healthy people, and if you have any history of needing medical assistance, you're uninsurable. My doctor himself was uninsurable, after foolishly agreeing to some check-up. Once the doctor puts something on their report, you can easily never be able to get insurance ever again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have said here before I voted for Obama and have been disappointed in him(Greatly).... I do not love the Health Plan at all, we need to do something though for those uninsured. To me it is a moral obligation...

 

that is a very noble sentiment.

 

I think you should contribute your time and/or money to this cause.

 

regarding moral obligations, i think you should explain to me why that is any of the government's business?

 

what if my moral structure differs from yours? why must i be held to your moral obligations?

 

I think it is a moral obligation that all 5* recruits go to ND and play football. Will you support my new bill in congress? These kids not going to ND are having sever economic impacts on the south bend area and NBC's advertising revenues, which affects tax revenues which go to very good causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is a very noble sentiment.

 

I think you should contribute your time and/or money to this cause.

 

regarding moral obligations, i think you should explain to me why that is any of the government's business?

 

what if my moral structure differs from yours? why must i be held to your moral obligations?

 

I think it is a moral obligation that all 5* recruits go to ND and play football. Will you support my new bill in congress? These kids not going to ND are having sever economic impacts on the south bend area and NBC's advertising revenues, which affects tax revenues which go to very good causes.

 

 

Good point! Libs think that everyone should be forced to believe the same way they believe regarding morality which is what they often accuse Christians of doing. For people who generally don't believe in absolute truth, it's ironic that libs wish to force their own notions of morality on the rest of us. It's perfectly fine for them to use the strong arm of government to coerce money from the rest of us who disagree with their twisted and distorted views of morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their views are not distorted, they are just different.

We dont need to disparage anyone for wanting to see the conditions of our fellow man improved.

We need to simply remind them that it is their own responsibility to act to their moral obligations which cannot be forced upon others or handed over to the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their views are not distorted, they are just different.

We dont need to disparage anyone for wanting to see the conditions of our fellow man improved.

We need to simply remind them that it is their own responsibility to act to their moral obligations which cannot be forced upon others or handed over to the government.

 

Wanting to and actually helping someone is a noble and Christian thing to do. I don't disparage anyone who actually takes it upon themselves to reach into their own pockets to help someone; however, it is despicable and worthy of condemnation to reach into someone else's pocket to help others and that's exactly what liberals and Obama want to do. It's immoral and should be called out as such - that's the right thing to do, to disparage and condemn immoral behavior.

Edited by RockneDrive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is a very noble sentiment.

 

I think you should contribute your time and/or money to this cause.

I do, I feed at soup kitchens at my church. I take mission trips, really don't want to get into what I do because sounds like I am tooting my own horn. Which is not what it is about.

 

regarding moral obligations, i think you should explain to me why that is any of the government's business? If we have USA Citizens dieing because of lack of insurance I think the government has a duty to step in....

 

what if my moral structure differs from yours? why must i be held to your moral obligations? That is a fair question, my morals come from the bible so I believe I have a duty to help the weakest and most vulnerable among us... For me it is a simple question what would Jesus do? Really what would he do if a person was dieing on the streets because he had no health insurance, would Jesus say get up and pull yourself up by your boot straps.. Or would Jesus say let me help you up and help heal you.. To me Jesus would do the latter, I believe charties have failed to provide enough assitance to these people.. So that is why I believe government should step in and help...To me it is a moral obligation for my government to do that... Your view is different from that so it is what it is. It does not help to be called evil by some people here because this is what you want to seen done by our government..

 

I think it is a moral obligation that all 5* recruits go to ND and play football. Will you support my new bill in congress? These kids not going to ND are having sever economic impacts on the south bend area and NBC's advertising revenues, which affects tax revenues which go to very good causes.

Haha, yea sure

Edited by cali_domer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think anyone here is in need of condemnation, we can make our point and call them to answer the questions.

 

If they choose not to answer by attacking the sources or the poster or by changing the subject, that is their problem.

 

By lowering yourself to the level of their tactics you undermine our argument and give them an easy way to dodge the substantial questions which we pose. on top of that this can and should be a friendly discussion... lets try and keep it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinon this is more offensive that we spend this much toward defense and do not have enough money for insurance for the poor.. Defense-related expenditure 2011 Budget request & Mandatory spending[1][15] Calculation[6][16]

DOD spending $721.3 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations" FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.

International Affairs $10.1–$54.2 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget

Energy Department, defense-related $20.9 billion

Veterans Affairs $66.2 billion

Homeland Security $54.7 billion

NASA, satellites $3.4–$8.5 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget

Veterans pensions $58.4 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $7.5 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $57.7–$228.1 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest

Total Spending $1.003–$1.223 trillion

Edited by cali_domer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think anyone here is in need of condemnation, we can make our point and call them to answer the questions.

 

If they choose not to answer by attacking the sources or the poster or by changing the subject, that is their problem.

 

By lowering yourself to the level of their tactics you undermine our argument and give them an easy way to dodge the substantial questions which we pose. on top of that this can and should be a friendly discussion... lets try and keep it that way.

 

I am trying to answer questions why I believe the way I do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...