Nowhere in the Constitution does an interdiction to "pass laws that force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in" appear. So, since Congress does not have the authority to do things that are not in its power according to the Constitution, what one has to do to defend a particular law that "forces people into an activity they don't desire to participate in" is show that the law in question was enacted according to the powers given to Congress by the Constitution.
Paying taxes, for example, is an activity. Not everyone wants to pay taxes, but the existence of tax laws is perfectly constitutional according to the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.
One can very well argue that the healthcare law is perfectly constitutional based on the powers vested in Congress by the Constitution, and in particular the Commerce clause. One can also argue the opposite. The Supreme Court will soon decide on the matter, but it is extremely ridiculous to claim
1. That "Congress can't pass laws that force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in", given the wide definition of "activity" and the existence today of plenty of laws that do just that and are without a doubt considered constitutional. 2. That one necessarily does not understand the Constitution if he thinks the healthcare law can be considered constitutional.
I don't get your point. You just confirmed what I've said. If Congress does not have the authority to pass such laws it has to be applied to one of the powers that already exists. Examples of that scenario would be United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison; both of which had the majority opinions revolving around the commerce clause.
Both were overturned. Anyways thanks for saying what I already said though, albeit I might have not been entirely clear.
On June 15 2012 04:01 paralleluniverse wrote: The argument that Obamacare state version is OK, but Obamacare national version isn't has always struck me as being odd and indefensible.
If Obamacare is good for Massachusetts, then why wouldn't it be good for all of America? What's so special about Massachusetts that's unique and specific to Massachusetts that makes Obamacare work great there, but is absent at the national level so that Obamacare is bad for the nation?
You must fail to understand the Constitution. Congress can't pass laws that force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in. If you are forced into buying insurance of any kind, it has violated the Constitution. The libtards will use the interstate commerce clause and that is something impossible to defend.
Edit: Ok seriously wtf.
paralleluniverse should be banned from participation until he understands the Constitution. You should seriously learn the content of this matter before you talk out of your ass. I don't think you understand this issue.
Consider this an unofficial warning. You can drop the 'libtard' on TL and don't bother back seat modding. There are large disagreement on how the Constitution should be interpreted, but uncivil arguments isn't going to fly here.
Can we actually talk about the election and the campaigns that these two opponents are running?
Obama and Mitt both had big speeches today in Ohio.
Here's the Obama one. Haven't found a youtube link to Romney's yet.
+ Speech doesn't start until 2:30. xDaunt might want to skip all the applause
+ 4:00 to 13:00, Obama gives an overview of the state of teh economy when he entered office. He really goes out of his way not to mention Bush.
+ 13:00 to minute 25:00, Obama outlines Romney's economic policies and delivers the strongest criticism of them so far. It will be interesting to see if this line of attack gets traction.
+ 40:10 he openly questions the Romney's camps sincerity when they say they plan on reducing the deficit.
+ 43:00 he calls out Republican Congress.
+ 46:00 he calls out the Romney attack ads.
+ 48:50 he appeals to independent and disenchanted Republicans.
So questions for other TL members:
Do you think the characterization of Romney as a hard-right conversative (versus a moderate flip-flopper) is better or worse for Obama?
Do you think Obama's outline of Romney's economic policy is fair/accurate?
im gonna watch the video and then comment on it after cause i didn't understand your questions (not your fault im a dummy)
btw: for anyone wondering the "real" speech starts at about 2:30 i think. (Obama is a pretty charismatic guy sometimes, i think he needs to loosen up more often)
be back with an edit in...49:11
edit: ok, now im ready, i took some notes while watching so i'm gonna list them out first:
On Romney's Economic Plan:
Basically (correct me if I'm wrong) he breaks it down like this:
Romney (+Repubs) think that you grow the economy from the top down. In order to get a good economy he says that they believe they have to cut programs and taxes. They want to roll back regulations on: banks, polluters, insurance and oil companies, consumer protections and worker protections. They want to extend the Bush tax cuts and add $5 trillion in other tax cuts. 70% of this new tax cut will benefit people who make over $250,000/yr, and those making over $1,000,000/yr will get a 25% tax cut.
thus far, my only big problems are that I don't think Romney wants to grow the economy from the top-down; rather he believes that what benefits the top will usually also benefit the bottom. i guess that might be called semantics but i think there is an important difference. the rest of it i have no real problem with, it's fairly accurate. he's (kinda) spinning it to make it sound worse, but that's to be expected and i don't think he was being too bad about it.
he does mention some things that i want to highlight though:
*Romney and Republicans want to continue the policies of the last decade ------- i don't know if that's accurate, i would need more specifics.
*Obama says his plan is to grow the middle class ------- how?
*He says that the rich need to pay "their fair share" ------- what is a fair share? i rarely hear this defined clearly. what do they pay now and how is that not their fair share?
*He talks about the Clinton years as being the biggest surplus in modern history ------- wasn't a lot of that caused by the ".com bubble?" i actually have no idea, so don't just be like "no you idiot!" i'm just repeating what i've heard and i would actually be interested in if this is true or not.
My first impression: i think this is a decent outline of his plan vs. Romney's. it's vague but then again, it's only a forty minute campaign speech, everything is gonna be vague so i won't hold that against him. i really hope he sticks with this kind of criticism though, i don't like him attacking their motives or their beliefs. just stick to the facts as you know them and outline why you think your way is better and their way is bad. all in all, i would give this part of his speech a 8/10.
On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote: Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences.
The politically smart thing to do would have been to ram Obamacare through at the beginning.
Obama gutted his precious health care plan in order to try to compromise with Republicans, and in the end Republicans didn't budge an inch. Obama's biggest failure as a President was trying to negotiate with extremists when he didn't have to.
If Democrats learned to play hardball as the Republicans have, then the healthcare debate would have been resolved quickly and they would have moved on to other important issues. I wonder how long it will take Democrats to learn that it's retarded for them to play nice when they're the only ones doing it.
Nowhere in the Constitution does an interdiction to "pass laws that force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in" appear. So, since Congress does not have the authority to do things that are not in its power according to the Constitution, what one has to do to defend a particular law that "forces people into an activity they don't desire to participate in" is show that the law in question was enacted according to the powers given to Congress by the Constitution.
Paying taxes, for example, is an activity. Not everyone wants to pay taxes, but the existence of tax laws is perfectly constitutional according to the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.
One can very well argue that the healthcare law is perfectly constitutional based on the powers vested in Congress by the Constitution, and in particular the Commerce clause. One can also argue the opposite. The Supreme Court will soon decide on the matter, but it is extremely ridiculous to claim
1. That "Congress can't pass laws that force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in", given the wide definition of "activity" and the existence today of plenty of laws that do just that and are without a doubt considered constitutional. 2. That one necessarily does not understand the Constitution if he thinks the healthcare law can be considered constitutional.
I don't get your point. You just confirmed what I've said. If Congress does not have the authority to pass such laws it has to be applied to one of the powers that already exists. Examples of that scenario would be United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison; both of which had the majority opinions revolving around the commerce clause.
Both were overturned. Anyways thanks for saying what I already said though, albeit I might have not been entirely clear.
I did not "just confirm what [you] just said"... I argued the opposite, namely that you can very well simultaneously understand the Constitution and defend the constitutionality of the healthcare law and of laws that "force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in".
On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote: Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences.
The politically smart thing to do would have been to ram Obamacare through at the beginning.
Obama gutted his precious health care plan in order to try to compromise with Republicans, and in the end Republicans didn't budge an inch. Obama's biggest failure as a President was trying to negotiate with extremists when he didn't have to.
If Democrats learned to play hardball as the Republicans have, then the healthcare debate would have been resolved quickly and they would have moved on to other important issues. I wonder how long it will take Democrats to learn that it's retarded for them to play nice when they're the only ones doing it.
No, he didn't gut Obamacare for the sake of appeasing republicans. He gutted it for the sake of appeasing blue dog democrats.
That said, I commend you for being the first liberal in this thread to acknowledge that Obama did not need to compromise with republicans.
On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote: Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences.
The politically smart thing to do would have been to ram Obamacare through at the beginning.
Obama gutted his precious health care plan in order to try to compromise with Republicans, and in the end Republicans didn't budge an inch. Obama's biggest failure as a President was trying to negotiate with extremists when he didn't have to.
If Democrats learned to play hardball as the Republicans have, then the healthcare debate would have been resolved quickly and they would have moved on to other important issues. I wonder how long it will take Democrats to learn that it's retarded for them to play nice when they're the only ones doing it.
No, he didn't gut Obamacare for the sake of appeasing republicans. He gutted it for the sake of appeasing blue dog democrats.
That said, I commend you for being the first liberal in this thread to acknowledge that Obama did not need to compromise with republicans.
He said he did not need to compromise with republicans, not that he didn't compromise.
I commend you for equating "extremists" to "republicans", by the way ,-)
I did not "just confirm what [you] just said"... I argued the opposite, namely that you can very well simultaneously understand the Constitution and defend the constitutionality of the healthcare law and of laws that "force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in".
I fail to see how you can still consider the ACA something constitutionally legal. The law was passed by Congress under the aegis of the interstate commerce clause which is a misinterpretation and overreaching effort to enforce something that would be considered illegal had it not been falsely protected.
I think the Supreme Court's ruling will soon confirm my position.
Do you think the characterization of Romney as a hard-right conversative (versus a moderate flip-flopper) is better or worse for Obama?
It is better for Obama, worse for the country as a whole, but I do not blame him for it.
On June 15 2012 09:02 Defacer wrote:
Do you think Obama's outline of Romney's economic policy is fair/accurate?
Fair? Hard to say. I tend not to look at criticisms of certain things as fair when there is no supporter to back them up. (I also do not think an Economist at Moodys can really be "independent or fair" but that is not really pertenent) Is it accurate though? Probably, although if it was then the President's own detailing of his economic policies was not very accurate either.
Overall it was the speech I expected from Obama. Worded really well, to the point that 70-80% of Americans will probably react strongly to it (negative or positive), but nothing that I had not seen before, and nothing that will convince me to vote for him. (I am not voting for Romney either, both of them disgust me.)
I did not "just confirm what [you] just said"... I argued the opposite, namely that you can very well simultaneously understand the Constitution and defend the constitutionality of the healthcare law and of laws that "force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in".
I fail to see how you can still consider the ACA something constitutionally legal. The law was passed by Congress under the aegis of the interstate commerce clause which is a misinterpretation and overreaching effort to enforce something that would be considered illegal had it not been falsely protected.
I think the Supreme Court's ruling will soon confirm my position.
You are just wrong.
I have been saying all along that the ACA is unconstitutional and that the Court will strike it down. However, it definitely is not "obviously" unconstitutional. It is a much closer call than you are making it out to be given the current state of commerce clause jurisprudence.
Do you think Obama's outline of Romney's economic policy is fair/accurate?
Fair? Hard to say. I tend not to look at criticisms of certain things as fair when there is no supporter to back them up. (I also do not think an Economist at Moodys can really be "independent or fair" but that is not really pertenent) Is it accurate though? Probably, although if it was then the President's own detailing of his economic policies was not very accurate either.
Overall it was the speech I expected from Obama. Worded really well, to the point that 70-80% of Americans will probably react strongly to it (negative or positive), but nothing that I had not seen before, and nothing that will convince me to vote for him. (I am not voting for Romney either, both of them disgust me.)
I thought it was interesting that Obama was practically daring the press to fact-check him when describing Mitt Romney's economic policy.
I'm just glad he's finally pointing out what I've been asking on the TL boards for ages -- How, exactly can you pretend to care about the deficit while promising another tax cut?
Obama's plans and ideas seem like incomplete wishful thinking, but Romney's plan seems to guarantee a larger deficit AND worse social services.
I did not "just confirm what [you] just said"... I argued the opposite, namely that you can very well simultaneously understand the Constitution and defend the constitutionality of the healthcare law and of laws that "force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in".
I fail to see how you can still consider the ACA something constitutionally legal. The law was passed by Congress under the aegis of the interstate commerce clause which is a misinterpretation and overreaching effort to enforce something that would be considered illegal had it not been falsely protected.
I think the Supreme Court's ruling will soon confirm my position.
You are just wrong.
Again, one can very well understand the Constitution and argue that the law is constitutional, just like one can very well understand the Constitution and argue that the law is unconstitutional. There is sufficient room for interpretation to defend both positions with a perfect understanding of the Constitution and of constitutional jurisprudence. I did not make a prediction on how the Supreme Court would rule, and whatever its decision the ruling will certainly not infirm what I just said.
My initial reply to you was about your statement that the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to "force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in". I showed that you were clearly wrong, and I explained to you why. You did not reply to that.
On June 15 2012 02:20 smarty pants wrote:How is it despicable and unpatriotic to filibuster? The gridlock couldn't be better, it's helping slow down the deficit producing machine in the executive office.
I know this is a little old but I think it goes to the heart of the problem with politics in general (we have the same here in Oz). This sense of entitlement of the party not governing. The fact is that the American public voted in a democratic president in a congress with a democratic majority. He had a mandate to govern in the manner in which he saw fit. To constantly filibuster because you are ideologically opposed is behaving like a spoilt brat who couldn't get the cookie they want. To then blame Obama for not being effective is really rich. It creates an incentive not to even try and compromise because the consequences are politically so damaging.
In hindsight it would have been better for him to just stick with his original plan and forget that the republican side of congress existed. At least then he wouldn't get blamed for the compromises he made.
*Romney and Republicans want to continue the policies of the last decade -------[i] i don't know if that's accurate, i would need more specifics.
I think the big difference is that Bush positioned himself as a 'compassionate' conservative ... in addition to a tax cut, he created a very expensive prescription drug program, sent funding to Africa to combat AIDs etc (I think I'm remembering this correctly).
He was a rich kid spending money willy-nilly.
Romney is proposing to slash a lot of tax breaks, entitlement programs and social services. And what Obama points out, that even if you did that, you would be only paying for a new tax cut, and not the Bush tax cuts.
I think Obama is trying to bait Romney into proving the math makes sense by getting specific about what programs he would cut and what tax loopholes he would close.
Current National Debt: $15,782,580,057,771 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $926,046/min
Interest on National Debt: $3,827,378,018,217 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $287,376/min
Current GDP: $15,205,695,897,699 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $802,589/min
Current Federal Tax Revenue: $2,301,724,804,226 - 6/14/2012 DECREASING by approxmiately $792/min
US Federal Spending: $3,651,989,529,450 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $181,130/min
Obama is doing a great job of spending us into bankruptcy. This country is headed into imminent default. He spent 5 TRILLION DOLLARS in 3 1/2 years. We were getting in over our heads in 2008 and instead of doing what needed to be done (balance the budget and end the wars LIKE HE PROMISED) he proceeded to be the single largest contributor to the national debt in the history of this country. If you are voting for him because you think he's cooler and at this point it doesn't even matter because nobody can fix our out of control debt then you're in the right. If you're voting for him because you legitimately believe that he is doing the best that he can as president of the USA then I'm afraid you are either terribly uninformed / disinterested or at least partially retarded.
Notice that total federal TAX revenue (all forms of federal tax, corporate payroll, income etc. ) is actually decreasing.. What is he doing for you people that you like?
On June 15 2012 10:59 snailmouth wrote: Current National Debt: $15,782,580,057,771 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $926,046/min
Interest on National Debt: $3,827,378,018,217 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $287,376/min
Current GDP: $15,205,695,897,699 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $802,589/min
Current Federal Tax Revenue: $2,301,724,804,226 - 6/14/2012 DECREASING by approxmiately $792/min
US Federal Spending: $3,651,989,529,450 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $181,130/min
Obama is doing a great job of spending us into bankruptcy. This country is headed into imminent default. He spent 5 TRILLION DOLLARS in 3 1/2 years. We were getting in over our heads in 2008 and instead of doing what needed to be done (balance the budget and end the wars LIKE HE PROMISED) he proceeded to be the single largest contributor to the national debt in the history of this country. If you are voting for him because you think he's cooler and at this point it doesn't even matter because nobody can fix our out of control debt then you're in the right. If you're voting for him because you legitimately believe that he is doing the best that he can as president of the USA then I'm afraid you are either terribly uninformed / disinterested or at least partially retarded.
Notice that total federal TAX revenue (all forms of federal tax, corporate payroll, income etc. ) is actually decreasing.. What is he doing for you people that you like?
You really haven't been following this thread, have you?
You're right, the deficit is bad. Romney's policies would likely make the deficit worse by decreasing tax revenue and killing programs that keep the lower middle-class and the elderly from slipping into poverty.
If you're looking for a candidate that can balance the budget without tanking the economy further, you're shit out of luck this year. Sorry!
Man, if you're pissed about the war in Afghanistan, here's a list of all the active military bases in Germany. Don't worry, some of them are scheduled to be closed in 2015, because, you know, the Cold War only ended 20-some years ago.
Do you think the characterization of Romney as a hard-right conversative (versus a moderate flip-flopper) is better or worse for Obama?
It is better for Obama, worse for the country as a whole, but I do not blame him for it.
On June 15 2012 09:02 Defacer wrote:
Do you think Obama's outline of Romney's economic policy is fair/accurate?
Fair? Hard to say. I tend not to look at criticisms of certain things as fair when there is no supporter to back them up. (I also do not think an Economist at Moodys can really be "independent or fair" but that is not really pertenent) Is it accurate though? Probably, although if it was then the President's own detailing of his economic policies was not very accurate either.
Overall it was the speech I expected from Obama. Worded really well, to the point that 70-80% of Americans will probably react strongly to it (negative or positive), but nothing that I had not seen before, and nothing that will convince me to vote for him. (I am not voting for Romney either, both of them disgust me.)
I thought it was interesting that Obama was practically daring the press to fact-check him when describing Mitt Romney's economic proposals.
I'm just glad he's finally pointing out what I've been asking on the TL boards for ages -- How, exactly can you pretend to care about the deficit while promising another tax cut?
Obama's plans and ideas seem like incomplete wishful thinking, but Romney's plan seems to guarantee a larger deficit AND worse social services.
Good luck not-voting!
On the contrary, I am voting, just not for either of them. There is no candidate completely in line without a lot of my views, but they are a few that are certainly closer to mine then either of Romney or Obama. And even if one vote cannot do much, it is probably my best option in getting my voice out there, in accordance with my current situation and position in life. (People say I am too cynical, so I am trying to be more of an optimist)
The problem with the Ryan plan/tax cuts is it is trying to do everything at once. If we want to cut government or taxes, fine, but spread it the fuck out. Wait for the government to actually be smaller before you reduce its revenues. (I think Romney might actually be drifting towards this concept, thankfully, but it could just be bullshit like it ususally is.) As for the wishful thinking, I completely agree. Thank you Mr. President, those were wonderful words of hope that you have used 10x before, now what exactly is the actual plan?
...Makes me wonder why I don't just permanently shun politics and go for getting rich and living in obscure luxury.
edit: As sort of an off-topic question, if we take into account inflation and the like, where does Obama rank in terms of contribution to the debt (per year or term, whatever)? I imagine he's well up there, but I doubt he spent more than Lincoln or Roosevelt.
Do you think the characterization of Romney as a hard-right conversative (versus a moderate flip-flopper) is better or worse for Obama?
It is better for Obama, worse for the country as a whole, but I do not blame him for it.
On June 15 2012 09:02 Defacer wrote:
Do you think Obama's outline of Romney's economic policy is fair/accurate?
Fair? Hard to say. I tend not to look at criticisms of certain things as fair when there is no supporter to back them up. (I also do not think an Economist at Moodys can really be "independent or fair" but that is not really pertenent) Is it accurate though? Probably, although if it was then the President's own detailing of his economic policies was not very accurate either.
Overall it was the speech I expected from Obama. Worded really well, to the point that 70-80% of Americans will probably react strongly to it (negative or positive), but nothing that I had not seen before, and nothing that will convince me to vote for him. (I am not voting for Romney either, both of them disgust me.)
I thought it was interesting that Obama was practically daring the press to fact-check him when describing Mitt Romney's economic proposals.
I'm just glad he's finally pointing out what I've been asking on the TL boards for ages -- How, exactly can you pretend to care about the deficit while promising another tax cut?
Obama's plans and ideas seem like incomplete wishful thinking, but Romney's plan seems to guarantee a larger deficit AND worse social services.
Good luck not-voting!
On the contrary, I am voting, just not for either of them. There is no candidate completely in line without a lot of my views, but they are a few that are certainly closer to mine then either of Romney or Obama. And even if one vote cannot do much, it is probably my best option in getting my voice out there, in accordance with my current situation and position in life. (People say I am too cynical, so I am trying to be more of an optimist)
The problem with the Ryan plan/tax cuts is it is trying to do everything at once. If we want to cut government or taxes, fine, but spread it the fuck out. Wait for the government to actually be smaller before you reduce its revenues. (I think Romney might actually be drifting towards this concept, thankfully, but it could just be bullshit like it ususally is.) As for the wishful thinking, I completely agree. Thank you Mr. President, those were wonderful words of hope that you have used 10x before, now what exactly is the actual plan?
...Makes me wonder why I don't just permanently shun politics and go for getting rich and living in obscure luxury.
Yes. Getting rich will solve everything. Too bad you live in America, where your personal success and failure hinges entirely on who is and isn't President.
Ziiiiinnng average American voter!
edit: As sort of an off-topic question, if we take into account inflation and the like, where does Obama rank in terms of contribution to the debt (per year or term, whatever)? I imagine he's well up there, but I doubt he spent more than Lincoln or Roosevelt.
edit: As sort of an off-topic question, if we take into account inflation and the like, where does Obama rank in terms of contribution to the debt (per year or term, whatever)? I imagine he's well up there, but I doubt he spent more than Lincoln or Roosevelt.
There's no way to viably compare to Lincoln. Lincoln paid for the Civil War by raising taxes and literally printing money (temporarily taking the US off the gold standard) in addition to borrowing money.
Roosevelt (and Wilson...) raised the debt by much, much more than Obama--but they were borrowing that money from American citizens (war bonds), so it wasn't as bad. And the money got paid back very quickly.
Other than that, only Bush 43 can be really compared to Obama as far as debt increase goes.
EPT
