| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
|
ChinaRestaurant
Austria324 Posts
On March 26 2012 09:21 Lockitupv2 wrote: The left has done a wonderful job of instilling the idea that having money is actually bad. More like only caring about money "because its your job to do so" is bad. | ||
|
meatbox
Australia349 Posts
On March 26 2012 09:52 ChinaRestaurant wrote: More like only caring about money "because its your job to do so" is bad. Having money is bad if you have NFI how to distribute it in a budget, so I guess the left is right  . The best solution that will never occur is to at least halve military spending, put a tax threshold whereby anyone earning less than $50,000 doesn't pay any tax and instil a fair progressive system up to 60% for those earning over $200,000 and 60% with no tax shielding for every dollar earned over $1,000,000. Something along these terms needs to be introduced, that way the economy can divert useless funds (military) and stimulate the 99% which matter with the extra cash in hand. You simply cannot cut any spending in the fields of education and medicare needs to be introduced so any citizen can see a doctor for free. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
Clearly my eating or non eating behavior, my choosing what to eat behavior, has an immense impact on the economics of the nation. Doesn't that fall under their definition of "regulating commerce" or "providing for the general welfare"? If you want to talk about saving money and reducing costs, a much greater amount of money could be saved by regulating people's eating habits than by forcing everyone to get health care. If these arguments for the individual mandate succeed, then how could the government not regulate every single action a citizen ever undertakes if every action has some kind of eventual effect or cost on the nation? Should we simply embrace a dictatorship if it's more efficient and economical? No... Clearly the costs that are being paid are typically considered WORTH IT, by bearing higher costs we are in effect purchasing liberty from government control. And there are other, better ways of reducing health care costs which doesn't include using additional force against the entire nation. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
Additional force is a redicolous argument by the way. There will be no more force used than already is. Even better, it will be economically benificial to have a healthier (and larger) working population. This is beside what I deem the most important part obviously, which is what society I want to live in. It's not a dystopia of where the state dictates everything, that isn't what this is about nor is it where it's heading (see: rest of the world), rather it's about positive freedom, something that seems to be missing a lot in the US. On March 26 2012 23:09 meatbox wrote: Having money is bad if you have NFI how to distribute it in a budget, so I guess the left is right . The best solution that will never occur is to at least halve military spending, put a tax threshold whereby anyone earning less than $50,000 doesn't pay any tax and instil a fair progressive system up to 60% for those earning over $200,000 and 60% with no tax shielding for every dollar earned over $1,000,000. Something along these terms needs to be introduced, that way the economy can divert useless funds (military) and stimulate the 99% which matter with the extra cash in hand. You simply cannot cut any spending in the fields of education and medicare needs to be introduced so any citizen can see a doctor for free. Seems proper. From what I understand the US educational system (basic education) needs an overhaul as well, but it's an issue I don't understand well enough beyond that to comment on. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On March 27 2012 00:00 HellRoxYa wrote: You realize that politicians can't really push a law through effectively unless it's deemed legitimate, right, liberal? To be able to regulate people's eating habits you'd had to be living in a complete police state already (something akin to North Korea). Additional force is a redicolous argument by the way. There will be no more force used than already is. Even better, it will be economically benificial to have a healthier (and larger) working population. This is beside what I deem the most important part obviously, which is what society I want to live in. It's not a dystopia of where the state dictates everything, that isn't what this is about nor is it where it's heading (see: rest of the world), rather it's about positive freedom, something that seems to be missing a lot in the US. If you look at the reasoning though (and keep in mind I am generally quite liberal, and do support greater/universal healthcare coverage), the rationale being used is that healthcare is a special field in that almost everyone will enter into it. Thus people not being covered from the start are a burden on the system, and in the end they will enter into it anyways. Thus the rationale for legislating that people are forced to get healthcare from a private insurer is that they will enter the system anyways eventually, thus they are covered under the side effects of the Commerce Clause. Similarly, you could probably argue that an overemphasis on junk food, which happens to be present in the US, has a huge financial impact on the system. This is because ACA proposes that healthcare companies are not allowed to charge exorbitant rates on people that rightly should be charged exorbitant rates because their health is down the shitter, so since we are having a solution with a private company, you expect them to work for profit. Since they cannot break even on this client, they must spread the losses over all other clients. Therefore one person's remarkably bad health negatively effects others financially. If the constitutionality of ACA goes through, I don't see why, using something similar to this adhoc line of argument, you cannot force people to eat healthy food. It would be just as valid under the Commerce Clause then as forcing people to buy health care. You'd have an impact under the interstate market of health care by raising rates for others by being too unhealthy to be charged properly! edit - Just to clarify again, I am totally for universal healthcare coverage. However, the question in mind is particular to the US Constitution, and if you can pass ACA as it is now, there doesn't seem to be a real reason to not be able to regulate healthy eating. Also, this could easily have been thrown out of the courts on the grounds that no one is effected by it yet (doesn't go into effect until 2014), and thus leave it to a later judicial or voter solution. There are precedents for that, since you usually can't sue about laws until they go into effect from what I've read (please correct me if I'm wrong on this, pretty important point). Also, as to your point about politicians needing political support, that is true but not in the fullest sense of the Constitution. Suppose we have marvelous law that will work wonders but is unconstitutional. It is not sufficient then for it to be passed with a simple majority. The Constitution actually prevents simple rule by majority unless it is constitutional rule - this can be seen by the majority requirements for amendments - 2/3 of both houses or 2/3 of the states must propose it, and then 3/4 of the states must ratify it. So you see it is not very easy to change the Constitution even under majority rule, as wiki states about 200 amendments are proposed on average during each session of Congress. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 27 2012 00:00 HellRoxYa wrote: You realize that politicians can't really push a law through effectively unless it's deemed legitimate, right, liberal? To be able to regulate people's eating habits you'd had to be living in a complete police state already (something akin to North Korea). Or New York City. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
New York City already regulates people's eating habits. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 27 2012 00:08 EtherealDeath wrote: edit - Just to clarify again, I am totally for universal healthcare coverage. However, the question in mind is particular to the US Constitution, and if you can pass ACA as it is now, there doesn't seem to be a real reason to not be able to regulate healthy eating. Also, this could easily have been thrown out of the courts on the grounds that no one is effected by it yet (doesn't go into effect until 2014), and thus leave it to a later judicial or voter solution. There are precedents for that, since you usually can't sue about laws until they go into effect from what I've read (please correct me if I'm wrong on this, pretty important point). You can sue to enjoin or strike a law before it goes into effect so long as you have sufficient legal standing to do so (ie you can show that the law will causally injure you and that the Court can redress that injury). | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On March 27 2012 00:20 xDaunt wrote: New York City already regulates people's eating habits. I was in NYC for 2 weeks over Christmas break. Didn't seem like much was regulated nor was it a dystopia of big government. Pretty much ate whatever I wanted. None of my friends who actually live and work there complained about the city controlling what they eat either... | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 27 2012 00:34 Adila wrote: I was in NYC for 2 weeks over Christmas break. Didn't seem like much was regulated nor was it a dystopia of big government. Pretty much ate whatever I wanted. None of my friends who actually live and work there complained about the city controlling what they eat either... They've banned transfats and are now looking at banning salt. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On March 27 2012 00:37 xDaunt wrote: They've banned transfats and are now looking at banning salt. Yea but that's different if we accept the plaintiffs' argument for the time being that there is a difference between banning and prescribing in this area, which may or may not exist. So I don't think they'd be too up in arms over transfats being banned. Quite interesting though that they are. Then again NYC is not the federal government so they probably can haha. | ||
|
RageBot
Israel1530 Posts
On March 26 2012 23:09 meatbox wrote: Having money is bad if you have NFI how to distribute it in a budget, so I guess the left is right . The best solution that will never occur is to at least halve military spending, put a tax threshold whereby anyone earning less than $50,000 doesn't pay any tax and instil a fair progressive system up to 60% for those earning over $200,000 and 60% with no tax shielding for every dollar earned over $1,000,000. Something along these terms needs to be introduced, that way the economy can divert useless funds (military) and stimulate the 99% which matter with the extra cash in hand. You simply cannot cut any spending in the fields of education and medicare needs to be introduced so any citizen can see a doctor for free. So, how do you stop these pepole who pay 60% of their taxes from leaving to a market with better conditions for them? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 27 2012 00:50 EtherealDeath wrote: Yea but that's different if we accept the plaintiffs' argument for the time being that there is a difference between banning and prescribing in this area, which may or may not exist. So I don't think they'd be too up in arms over transfats being banned. Quite interesting though that they are. Then again NYC is not the federal government so they probably can haha. Well, right. The states and cities have plenary power to do whatever they want under the federal Constitution (whether they can do it under state constitutions is another matter). I was just pointing out that you don't need to be in North Korea or have a total police state to see governments regulating what people eat. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 27 2012 00:32 xDaunt wrote: You can sue to enjoin or strike a law before it goes into effect so long as you have sufficient legal standing to do so (ie you can show that the law will causally injure you and that the Court can redress that injury). It is one of the defenses. Also, for those not familiar with American constitutional law, I highly suggest this explanation of the case: As a moderate, I really do hope this gets struck down for two reasons. 1.) I think there are better ways to actually solve this problem, and 2.) It really does scare me if we give the government this power - its further reaching than it seems at first glance. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 27 2012 00:53 BluePanther wrote: It is one of the defenses. Also, for those not familiar with American constitutional law, I highly suggest this explanation of the case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmTednDfdxA As a moderate, I really do hope this gets struck down for two reasons. 1.) I think there are better ways to actually solve this problem, and 2.) It really does scare me if we give the government this power - its further reaching than it seems at first glance. Yes, the government is arguing that there is no standing, but they are doing so under the Anti-Injunction Act that prohibits people from challenging tax laws before the tax goes into effect. This is different than regular legal standing. Keep in mind that AIA only applies if Obamacare is considered a tax law, which I doubt it will be. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 27 2012 00:37 xDaunt wrote: They've banned transfats and are now looking at banning salt. That's actually a really good thing and I'm amazed you see something wrong with it. Why not elaborate on why you think its a bad thing? | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:19 xDaunt wrote: Yes, the government is arguing that there is no standing, but they are doing so under the Anti-Injunction Act that prohibits people from challenging tax laws before the tax goes into effect. This is different than regular legal standing. Keep in mind that AIA only applies if Obamacare is considered a tax law, which I doubt it will be. Well aware, I was just clarifying that there is a standing defense. | ||
|
meatbox
Australia349 Posts
On March 27 2012 00:51 RageBot wrote: So, how do you stop these pepole who pay 60% of their taxes from leaving to a market with better conditions for them? I said along those lines, even at 60%, they will stay, the big bucks are to be made in America, it remains the strongest economy for now, but in the next 5 years they'll be screwed, thank goodness for Iraqi citizens for putting a huge dent into the American War Money Making Machine! They've paid with their lives  , Arabs would rather die standing than live on their knees.  | ||
|
meatbox
Australia349 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:24 Mohdoo wrote: That's actually a really good thing and I'm amazed you see something wrong with it. Why not elaborate on why you think its a bad thing? Don't you understand what is happening? Anyway it's too late to change anything unless civil war breaks out and the people overrun parliament, they've already passed the necessary legislation. Soon you will be unknowingly drugged because it is 'good for you.' USA will soon be a fascist state, the national eugenic program will be commencing within the next few years... | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
GSL
OSC
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
