|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 27 2013 22:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 15:23 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 27 2013 08:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obamacare will be worse for the economy than either a gov. shutdown, or a default.
Oh, and polls suggest that both sides will take the blame in the event of either occurring.
How did it come to this? Look no further than Obama's first term. He's done more to divide this country than anyone else in recent history. What. No, it will not be. Do you have any fucking idea what the hell a fucking default will do to the economy? No one has any REAL idea what it would do (being almost entirely unprecedented), though I think we can all agree that it would be pretty fucking bad for the short-term. Obviously the smart move to make if it did occur would be to immediately begin prioritizing payments and enacting pretty massive austerity cuts. Taxes would have to come up also (an unfortunate reality), but the majority of the savings would have to come from spending (even Geithner unwittingly agrees with that). Unemployment would jump (or skyrocket, depending on who you ask). Borrowing would become rather difficult, and it is very likely that there might be a run on the banks. One (or more) of our large spending programs (SS, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, etc.) would have to either be cut entirely or cut to the bone (and deeper). Naturally what would follow would be a pretty massive contraction in the global and domestic market as securities and investments suddenly look a lot riskier. The world would almost certainly enter a pretty deep financial crises. Especially in America, cash-strapped house-buyers and struggling US businesses would find their capital costs going up (maybe drastically). The deep cuts in the budget would necessarily move money away from infrastructural investments. A stock market crash is inarguable. We can't say for certain how big it would be, but it would definitely be pretty big. That alone might have Congress scrambling to pass any debt bill Obama wants, just to get the stocks moving again (much like the jump immediately following the passage of TARP). Another (serious?) downgrade in our credit rating is a given. It is also pretty unlikely that the dollar would remain the world's reserve currency, considering the fact that most in the global market are already leaning that way anyway. All this would be pretty fucking terrible. But then again, all of it would be solvable and would not last too long (depending on who you ask). Obamacare would be pretty fucking terrible, and would last, presumably, until the Health Care industry collapses and the Democrats have ammo to use that to fund a single payer system. Of course, this would only continue adding to the overall debt and deficit, thus making the inevitable crash that much more painful. Call me crazy, but I'd rather take a solid punch to the gut now and get it over with, instead of having twenty years of strangulation before the punch comes. No, economists are fairly well aware of the implications. However, I stillI don't think you do. No, the damn thing isn't a short term effect. It will permanently cripple the US economy. Almost all literature on the subject agrees that it is impossible to know to what extent these things will occur. There is very little precedent for it. Nothing is permanent. In a debate that is defined by the hyperbole being tossed around by either side, let at least us, who do not have elections to win, dispense with it. How you and I define short-term is obviously very different.
I think it's funny that you think Obamacare is what is going to tip this country over into an "inevitable crash." The wheels are coming off the cart man, any major perturbance could trigger a world crisis of capitalism. Obamacare is pretty mild in comparison.
Now if you are arguing that we need to defund Obamacare to get the ball rolling on Obamacare 2.0 with a singlepayer system, I see where your head is at.
|
On September 27 2013 21:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 20:28 KwarK wrote:
The doom stories about what will happen if America had public healthcare (mass unemployment, loss of services etc) always strike me as odd because this isn't something new and radical being proposed. As much as Americans like to think they're pushing back the frontiers of social progress on this one they're considering something every other first world nation has already implemented. With this in mind the speculation about all the terrible things that'd happen just seems odd, you don't really need to speculate, you can just look. Public healthcare provides better services for less money and can operate parallel to a private insurance based option for those that can afford it. No, really. It's been done. My biggest worry over a single payer system is that Congress finds a way to screw it up. Not implausible.
Honestly, the most likely problem in the U.S. with single payer is that Congress will feel compelled (read: paid by lobbyists) to smack a "the government cannot negotiate with drug or device companies on prices" bit, even though this makes even less sense when you are the entire customer base, rather than just the majority of it.
|
On September 28 2013 00:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 21:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 27 2013 20:28 KwarK wrote:
The doom stories about what will happen if America had public healthcare (mass unemployment, loss of services etc) always strike me as odd because this isn't something new and radical being proposed. As much as Americans like to think they're pushing back the frontiers of social progress on this one they're considering something every other first world nation has already implemented. With this in mind the speculation about all the terrible things that'd happen just seems odd, you don't really need to speculate, you can just look. Public healthcare provides better services for less money and can operate parallel to a private insurance based option for those that can afford it. No, really. It's been done. My biggest worry over a single payer system is that Congress finds a way to screw it up. Not implausible. Honestly, the most likely problem in the U.S. with single payer is that Congress will feel compelled (read: paid by lobbyists) to smack a "the government cannot negotiate with drug or device companies on prices" bit, even though this makes even less sense when you are the entire customer base, rather than just the majority of it.
Yes, exactly. They'll also be lobbied by inefficient hospitals who *need* higher payments to cover their costs and doctors who want to hold on to outdated practices / methodologies.
|
So the fact that Boehner doesn't/can't get the votes for his own GOP bill and the Democrats who, obviously, won't support such a insane set of demands. This could be the Constitutional Crisis that drives the country over the edge.
|
On September 28 2013 00:09 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 22:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 27 2013 15:23 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 27 2013 08:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obamacare will be worse for the economy than either a gov. shutdown, or a default.
Oh, and polls suggest that both sides will take the blame in the event of either occurring.
How did it come to this? Look no further than Obama's first term. He's done more to divide this country than anyone else in recent history. What. No, it will not be. Do you have any fucking idea what the hell a fucking default will do to the economy? No one has any REAL idea what it would do (being almost entirely unprecedented), though I think we can all agree that it would be pretty fucking bad for the short-term. Obviously the smart move to make if it did occur would be to immediately begin prioritizing payments and enacting pretty massive austerity cuts. Taxes would have to come up also (an unfortunate reality), but the majority of the savings would have to come from spending (even Geithner unwittingly agrees with that). Unemployment would jump (or skyrocket, depending on who you ask). Borrowing would become rather difficult, and it is very likely that there might be a run on the banks. One (or more) of our large spending programs (SS, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, etc.) would have to either be cut entirely or cut to the bone (and deeper). Naturally what would follow would be a pretty massive contraction in the global and domestic market as securities and investments suddenly look a lot riskier. The world would almost certainly enter a pretty deep financial crises. Especially in America, cash-strapped house-buyers and struggling US businesses would find their capital costs going up (maybe drastically). The deep cuts in the budget would necessarily move money away from infrastructural investments. A stock market crash is inarguable. We can't say for certain how big it would be, but it would definitely be pretty big. That alone might have Congress scrambling to pass any debt bill Obama wants, just to get the stocks moving again (much like the jump immediately following the passage of TARP). Another (serious?) downgrade in our credit rating is a given. It is also pretty unlikely that the dollar would remain the world's reserve currency, considering the fact that most in the global market are already leaning that way anyway. All this would be pretty fucking terrible. But then again, all of it would be solvable and would not last too long (depending on who you ask). Obamacare would be pretty fucking terrible, and would last, presumably, until the Health Care industry collapses and the Democrats have ammo to use that to fund a single payer system. Of course, this would only continue adding to the overall debt and deficit, thus making the inevitable crash that much more painful. Call me crazy, but I'd rather take a solid punch to the gut now and get it over with, instead of having twenty years of strangulation before the punch comes. No, economists are fairly well aware of the implications. However, I stillI don't think you do. No, the damn thing isn't a short term effect. It will permanently cripple the US economy. Almost all literature on the subject agrees that it is impossible to know to what extent these things will occur. There is very little precedent for it. Nothing is permanent. In a debate that is defined by the hyperbole being tossed around by either side, let at least us, who do not have elections to win, dispense with it. How you and I define short-term is obviously very different. I think it's funny that you think Obamacare is what is going to tip this country over into an "inevitable crash." The wheels are coming off the cart man, any major perturbance could trigger a world crisis of capitalism. Obamacare is pretty mild in comparison.
Capitalism isn't being threatened here, only the crony capitalism that we've designed and fed into for the past 100 years.
There is always a straw that breaks the camel's back, and Obamacare is a pretty huge, trillion dollar straw. Will it happen immediately? Nope. Will it happen eventually? Absolutely.
|
ObamaCare List Hits 313 As 54 Colleges Cut Adjunct Hours
If one job category stands out for bearing a heavy price from ObamaCare-related cuts to work hours, it might be adjunct college faculty.
Among 313 employers now on IBD's ObamaCare Employer Mandate List Of Cuts To Hours, Jobs that have cut work hours or permanent staff, or shifted to part-time hiring, there are 54 colleges and universities that have scaled back the hours adjunct faculty may teach.
The list also includes 80 public school districts that have cut hours or outsourced the job functions of teacher aides, cafeteria workers and other employees.
Still, the inclusion of a number of community college systems such as Maricopa, Ivy Tech and Dallas County means that cuts in adjunct faculty hours now extend to nearly 200 college and university campuses attended by about 1.6 million students.
All over the country, adjunct teaching loads are being limited to nine credit hours — just below the 30-hour threshold at which Affordable Care Act employer penalties hit. That's the equivalent of nine hours per week in the classroom and 18 hours of work preparing, grading, etc. ...
Link
Obamacare clearly has flaws. Both Reps and Dems should be trying to fix those flaws. Reps shouldn't be trying to repeal it at this point, it's just too late in the game for that.
|
Am starting to believe that they will actually default and not raise the debt-ceiling this time.
This way the failure of bernankes QE in safing the economy can be contributed to the default of the government and puting the blame for that on either the democrats (for not cutting enough) or the republicans (for not raising the ceiling).
It would prevent huge inflation in the comming years while gently allowing the economy to collapse/deflate further, or the fed can step in at the last minute, print even more monney and be the hero that safes the day.
Well probably not lol but will see.
|
Obama has spoken with Iranian President over the phone. First time 34 years.
New Jersey Court says state must allow Gay Marriage.
Obama speaking now.
|
Okay, when I get older i'm going to move somewhere with a monarchy.
A nice one, but still a monarchy.
This is nuts...
|
Yeah it would be nice if the Habsburgs were still around. I hear Austria is beautiful.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) hasn't even been in Washington for a full year, but Republicans already appear eager to tap him as the party's next presidential nominee.
The latest survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling released Friday found Cruz as the top choice for 2016 among Republicans nationwide. With 20 percent support, Cruz narrowly edged Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who claimed the support of 17 percent of GOP primary voters. New Jersery Gov. Chris Christie (R) trailed the two junior senators with 14 percent, followed by 11 percent for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R). Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) each picked up 10 percent.
Cruz has asserted himself as a legitimate 2016 contender in recent months, gaining eight points among Republicans nationally since PPP's previous survey in July and emerging as the face of the party's conservative wing. According to PPP, Cruz won 34 percent among "very conservative" primary voters, easily outpacing Paul (17 percent) and Ryan (12 percent).
Cruz's 21-hour talkathon to protest funding for Obamacare began on Tuesday and spilled into Wednesday, meaning that the poll included at least some respondents who were aware of the stunt.
PPP conducted its survey on Wednesday and Thursday using automated interviews with 743 GOP primary voters. It has a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points.
Source
|
On September 28 2013 02:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:09 IgnE wrote:On September 27 2013 22:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 27 2013 15:23 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 27 2013 08:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obamacare will be worse for the economy than either a gov. shutdown, or a default.
Oh, and polls suggest that both sides will take the blame in the event of either occurring.
How did it come to this? Look no further than Obama's first term. He's done more to divide this country than anyone else in recent history. What. No, it will not be. Do you have any fucking idea what the hell a fucking default will do to the economy? No one has any REAL idea what it would do (being almost entirely unprecedented), though I think we can all agree that it would be pretty fucking bad for the short-term. Obviously the smart move to make if it did occur would be to immediately begin prioritizing payments and enacting pretty massive austerity cuts. Taxes would have to come up also (an unfortunate reality), but the majority of the savings would have to come from spending (even Geithner unwittingly agrees with that). Unemployment would jump (or skyrocket, depending on who you ask). Borrowing would become rather difficult, and it is very likely that there might be a run on the banks. One (or more) of our large spending programs (SS, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, etc.) would have to either be cut entirely or cut to the bone (and deeper). Naturally what would follow would be a pretty massive contraction in the global and domestic market as securities and investments suddenly look a lot riskier. The world would almost certainly enter a pretty deep financial crises. Especially in America, cash-strapped house-buyers and struggling US businesses would find their capital costs going up (maybe drastically). The deep cuts in the budget would necessarily move money away from infrastructural investments. A stock market crash is inarguable. We can't say for certain how big it would be, but it would definitely be pretty big. That alone might have Congress scrambling to pass any debt bill Obama wants, just to get the stocks moving again (much like the jump immediately following the passage of TARP). Another (serious?) downgrade in our credit rating is a given. It is also pretty unlikely that the dollar would remain the world's reserve currency, considering the fact that most in the global market are already leaning that way anyway. All this would be pretty fucking terrible. But then again, all of it would be solvable and would not last too long (depending on who you ask). Obamacare would be pretty fucking terrible, and would last, presumably, until the Health Care industry collapses and the Democrats have ammo to use that to fund a single payer system. Of course, this would only continue adding to the overall debt and deficit, thus making the inevitable crash that much more painful. Call me crazy, but I'd rather take a solid punch to the gut now and get it over with, instead of having twenty years of strangulation before the punch comes. No, economists are fairly well aware of the implications. However, I stillI don't think you do. No, the damn thing isn't a short term effect. It will permanently cripple the US economy. Almost all literature on the subject agrees that it is impossible to know to what extent these things will occur. There is very little precedent for it. Nothing is permanent. In a debate that is defined by the hyperbole being tossed around by either side, let at least us, who do not have elections to win, dispense with it. How you and I define short-term is obviously very different. I think it's funny that you think Obamacare is what is going to tip this country over into an "inevitable crash." The wheels are coming off the cart man, any major perturbance could trigger a world crisis of capitalism. Obamacare is pretty mild in comparison. Capitalism isn't being threatened here, only the crony capitalism that we've designed and fed into for the past 100 years. There is always a straw that breaks the camel's back, and Obamacare is a pretty huge, trillion dollar straw. Will it happen immediately? Nope. Will it happen eventually? Absolutely.
Capitalism is definitely being threatened here. If we didn't have the crony capitalism and the socialism-lite of entitlement spending the people would have already risen up or the rich would have barricaded themselves in fortified compounds. Capital accretes capital, now more than ever. We are coming upon the limits of "endless growth" and capitalism is powerless to stop it.
|
|
|
Once in a while, good ole Wolf the Blitzer seems like his old self.
|
The Senate voted 54-44 on Wednesday to keep the government funded with Obamacare intact, sending the stopgap measure back to House Republicans, who are in the midst of a civil war as the clock ticks to a shutdown Monday night.
The deep chasm over the health care law leaves Congress potentially facing its first shutdown of the federal government since 1996 when the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, unless congressional leaders pull a rabbit out of their hats at the last minute.
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has said the House probably won't accept the "clean" bill to avert a government shutdown. GOP leaders are mulling several options on what to do next. One possibility, according to sources, is to attach two Obamacare-related provisions to the continuing resolution -- repeal of the medical device tax, and a provision denying members of Congress subsidies under the health care law -- and send it back to the Senate.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) categorically ruled that out on Friday.
"Let's be absolutely clear: we are going to accept nothing that relates to Obamacare.," he told reporters after the bill passed, calling on Republicans to "get a life" and talk about something other than Obamacare.
That leaves House GOP leaders in a very tough spot. Their predicament is exacerbated by the fact that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the leader of the quixotic push to defund Obamacare, is privately telling conservative House members to defy Boehner's fiscal strategy, according to the National Review. Boehner has been trying to persuade members not to shut down the government over Obamacare by dangling all sorts of conservative goodies before them in a bill to lift the debt ceiling and stave off a catastrophic debt default.
"I very much hope that when the House bill comes back all 46 Republicans stand together, stand united against Obamacare," Cruz told reporters, standing beside Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL). "The House was always in a position where it was going to lead. And I know from my perspective and Sen. Lee's perspective we look forward to helping and supporting the House, standing up and doing the right thing for the American people."
Source
|
This is just so shocking...I can't believe the US government might go into partial shutdown mode, and maybe even default over a bill 15 days later. I can't even imagine what would happen to the world if the US defaults on its debt. Everything will change
|
We wouldn't want anything as old as the constitution getting in the way of our new great state solutions, would we? If you can't find a constitutional justification, invent one, say the activist judges. If you like it, call it not a tax in one breath and a tax in another. Find an enumeration of a penumbra. If they're selling it as an insurance put in your own account, call it a tax for general purposes when it gets to the supreme court. Examples like these are some of the reasons we are living in a post-constitutional society. The powers of government extend so far that there aren't any left reserved to the states or the people.
This is the thing that most who support Obamacare don't seem to care about. They can whine about the NSA like everyone else (as we all should), but they only really care about the Constitution when it involves spying activities (or a Republican going to war). All other times they treat it as an out dated and irrelevant piece of paper.
|
On September 28 2013 10:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +We wouldn't want anything as old as the constitution getting in the way of our new great state solutions, would we? If you can't find a constitutional justification, invent one, say the activist judges. If you like it, call it not a tax in one breath and a tax in another. Find an enumeration of a penumbra. If they're selling it as an insurance put in your own account, call it a tax for general purposes when it gets to the supreme court. Examples like these are some of the reasons we are living in a post-constitutional society. The powers of government extend so far that there aren't any left reserved to the states or the people. This is the thing that most who support Obamacare don't seem to care about. They can whine about the NSA like everyone else (as we all should), but they only really care about the Constitution when it involves spying activities (or a Republican going to war). All other times they treat it as an out dated and irrelevant piece of paper.
An interesting characterization of those not in bed with constitutional originalists to be sure, but at the end of the day, you can whine inconsistency all you like and it will not change the fact that the Constitution and socialized healthcare can and will co-exist. It's really just a question of how much kicking and screaming y'all have the energy for.
|
On September 28 2013 06:13 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 02:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 28 2013 00:09 IgnE wrote:On September 27 2013 22:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 27 2013 15:23 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 27 2013 08:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obamacare will be worse for the economy than either a gov. shutdown, or a default.
Oh, and polls suggest that both sides will take the blame in the event of either occurring.
How did it come to this? Look no further than Obama's first term. He's done more to divide this country than anyone else in recent history. What. No, it will not be. Do you have any fucking idea what the hell a fucking default will do to the economy? No one has any REAL idea what it would do (being almost entirely unprecedented), though I think we can all agree that it would be pretty fucking bad for the short-term. Obviously the smart move to make if it did occur would be to immediately begin prioritizing payments and enacting pretty massive austerity cuts. Taxes would have to come up also (an unfortunate reality), but the majority of the savings would have to come from spending (even Geithner unwittingly agrees with that). Unemployment would jump (or skyrocket, depending on who you ask). Borrowing would become rather difficult, and it is very likely that there might be a run on the banks. One (or more) of our large spending programs (SS, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, etc.) would have to either be cut entirely or cut to the bone (and deeper). Naturally what would follow would be a pretty massive contraction in the global and domestic market as securities and investments suddenly look a lot riskier. The world would almost certainly enter a pretty deep financial crises. Especially in America, cash-strapped house-buyers and struggling US businesses would find their capital costs going up (maybe drastically). The deep cuts in the budget would necessarily move money away from infrastructural investments. A stock market crash is inarguable. We can't say for certain how big it would be, but it would definitely be pretty big. That alone might have Congress scrambling to pass any debt bill Obama wants, just to get the stocks moving again (much like the jump immediately following the passage of TARP). Another (serious?) downgrade in our credit rating is a given. It is also pretty unlikely that the dollar would remain the world's reserve currency, considering the fact that most in the global market are already leaning that way anyway. All this would be pretty fucking terrible. But then again, all of it would be solvable and would not last too long (depending on who you ask). Obamacare would be pretty fucking terrible, and would last, presumably, until the Health Care industry collapses and the Democrats have ammo to use that to fund a single payer system. Of course, this would only continue adding to the overall debt and deficit, thus making the inevitable crash that much more painful. Call me crazy, but I'd rather take a solid punch to the gut now and get it over with, instead of having twenty years of strangulation before the punch comes. No, economists are fairly well aware of the implications. However, I stillI don't think you do. No, the damn thing isn't a short term effect. It will permanently cripple the US economy. Almost all literature on the subject agrees that it is impossible to know to what extent these things will occur. There is very little precedent for it. Nothing is permanent. In a debate that is defined by the hyperbole being tossed around by either side, let at least us, who do not have elections to win, dispense with it. How you and I define short-term is obviously very different. I think it's funny that you think Obamacare is what is going to tip this country over into an "inevitable crash." The wheels are coming off the cart man, any major perturbance could trigger a world crisis of capitalism. Obamacare is pretty mild in comparison. Capitalism isn't being threatened here, only the crony capitalism that we've designed and fed into for the past 100 years. There is always a straw that breaks the camel's back, and Obamacare is a pretty huge, trillion dollar straw. Will it happen immediately? Nope. Will it happen eventually? Absolutely. Capitalism is definitely being threatened here. If we didn't have the crony capitalism and the socialism-lite of entitlement spending the people would have already risen up or the rich would have barricaded themselves in fortified compounds. Capital accretes capital, now more than ever. We are coming upon the limits of "endless growth" and capitalism is powerless to stop it.
Funny how the richest two men in the history of the world were both born poor, and made their wealth through a much freer form of capitalism than we have now.
|
On September 28 2013 10:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +We wouldn't want anything as old as the constitution getting in the way of our new great state solutions, would we? If you can't find a constitutional justification, invent one, say the activist judges. If you like it, call it not a tax in one breath and a tax in another. Find an enumeration of a penumbra. If they're selling it as an insurance put in your own account, call it a tax for general purposes when it gets to the supreme court. Examples like these are some of the reasons we are living in a post-constitutional society. The powers of government extend so far that there aren't any left reserved to the states or the people. This is the thing that most who support Obamacare don't seem to care about. They can whine about the NSA like everyone else (as we all should), but they only really care about the Constitution when it involves spying activities (or a Republican going to war). All other times they treat it as an out dated and irrelevant piece of paper.
Ridiculous comparison. It's a tax or a fine, whatever. The question posed to the judges was basically "is the fine light enough so that someone reasonably has a choice." That makes it reduced to a judgement call. Which you know, judges decide. And decide they did.
I find it rather strange to compare that to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure rulings.
Not to mention that it's even more absurd because a single payer system would be constitutional even if the individual mandate wasn't. And that would be more of a so-called government overreach.
And considering how the ACLU is constantly labeled a "far-left organization" purely for defending people's constitutional rights, it's pretty rich to say that people who support Obamacare think the Constitution is irrelevant.
|
On September 28 2013 10:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:11 Introvert wrote:We wouldn't want anything as old as the constitution getting in the way of our new great state solutions, would we? If you can't find a constitutional justification, invent one, say the activist judges. If you like it, call it not a tax in one breath and a tax in another. Find an enumeration of a penumbra. If they're selling it as an insurance put in your own account, call it a tax for general purposes when it gets to the supreme court. Examples like these are some of the reasons we are living in a post-constitutional society. The powers of government extend so far that there aren't any left reserved to the states or the people. This is the thing that most who support Obamacare don't seem to care about. They can whine about the NSA like everyone else (as we all should), but they only really care about the Constitution when it involves spying activities (or a Republican going to war). All other times they treat it as an out dated and irrelevant piece of paper. An interesting characterization of those not in bed with constitutional originalists to be sure, but at the end of the day, you can whine inconsistency all you like and it will not change the fact that the Constitution and socialized healthcare can and will co-exist. It's really just a question of how much kicking and screaming y'all have the energy for.
Please show me how ANY of the founders would have endorsed the idea of a mandatory purchase. Hell, even those who ratified the tax amendment.
Any other interpretation of the Constitution is wrong... the only debate should be about what the Framers meant in their wording, since that is our law. No other way is even logical. What good is the law if it can be changed on a whim? But I'm sure you've heard this all before and reject it. Convenient. And they do coexist, the Constitution as a document only followed when elections roll around; at all other times, as history has shown, the left (and many on the right) will completely ignore it. But I understand, when the law is not on your side, you just what you want anyway. Like Danglers said, use activist judges, "taxes," etc. The path of "progress" must not be stopped by mere laws. Hence why Obama feels no guilt at all to just willy-nilly delay parts of the LAW. Obamacare is law, yes? The democrats constantly remind us of this.
As an interesting aside, it would be fun to see liberals try and convince the country that their way is so great and actually use amendments to make it Constitutional. The progressive movement has been around a hundred years, surely they could have done something besides add the income tax? Of course the people would never go for that, so other avenues must be used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
