[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freedom4um a site that supports terrorism...Developing

Is Sneakypete To Gay To Understand This?

Obama leading in the formation of the Islamic Caliphate!- Prophecy in the News - June 18 2014

Perry Stone Are Islamic Prophecies Pointing To the President

Darius Porter Is Said To Have Beat A Man Senseless

America's Nazi Allies in Israel and Ukraine

Former Homosexual Reveals ... 'Unmitigated Disaster' --- 'of Gay Marriage'

Stupid Predictions Made By Alex Jones That Never Came True

horse’s ass you have to be ... to still be driving around --- 0bama sticker on your car..

Only brainwashed leftists could think that the preference of genitalia ...

Elizabeth Warren’s List for Progressives Is EERILY SIMILAR to Hitler’s Nazi List

Some Faggot Thinks he is a Woman Wants To Use Womans Bathroom. Hobby Lobby Correctly tells the freak NO!

Actor James Garner dead at 86

That awkward moment when you realize Weird Al would make a better president than what we've had recently...

Meet ... Cromagnon man - Neaderthal man --- Zug zug

The Nuclear Option ... Why Do I Have to Buy Healthcare --- for Potheads?

Christian Eschatology ... The Planet --- of the Apes

Google is building the future, but its workforce looks a lot like an unwanted past

Marvel's new Thor will be a woman

Marvel is replacing Steve Rogers with the new, black Captain America

Hey Dayton Did You Know Your City Leaders Have Sold You Out You Are Being Invaded By Muslim Turks

PIECE OF SHIT: Matt Joseph.. Dayton City Council Prefers Illegals To Real Americans

"Weird Al" Yankovic Music Video: FOIL (Parody of "Royals" by Lorde)

Hillary's 'gun free zones' ... create a safe 'workplace' --- for our hardworking criminal

Water Wheel Picks Up Trash in Baltimore's Waterways

The GOP self-destruction is complete: millennials officially hate conservatives

Brawley Union High School Says You Can't Talk About God. (Screw them freaks call them and raise hell)

I'm Burning Bridges

Here is to Hope that Netanyahu will destroy Hamas

Homosexual Activist Sneakypete thinks if you're Not for redefining marriage you are a fascist (No Pete you are a fascist faggot activist)

Why Isn't Robin Of the Peoples Scrotum Offering Housing To The Weback Children?

Robin from the Peoples Scrotum wants to suck off Obama. These Blacks Know Better

Piece of Shit Obama is turning blacks agains him. They hate him call him worst president ever

Weekend Music Thread

This is an insult ... like no other --- Very unfair to outhouses!

Letterman - hope he never retires ... a perpetual adolescent --- why would he?

What is Going on in Ukraine. Video

Skin-to-skin contact ... “kangaroo cuddling,” --- has a calming effect for newborn babies.

Alleged Facebook predator used fake account to flirt with hundreds of boys

Obama doesn't know the meaning of patriotism ... uses the word --- to suit his agenda.

happy 4th ... living in the 3rd world --- doesn't mean a thing to these people !

Taking prayer - God out of schools ... sure is making things better, ...right atheists...?

corporate theocracy now ... Christian right seeks --- cultural - political domination

Obamakins - dirtbag doing what they want ... Obama world running wild --- what Holder will do?

(which reminds me...((( paging war )))...where yoo been, dude? How's 0buma doing NOW??)

BOMBSHELL: CHARLES C. JOHNSON: COCHRAN CAMPAIGN MANAGER KIRK SIMS BEHIND VOTE BUYING SCHEME (He Has The Texts) VIDEO

Police sergeants arrested after allegedly robbing men in Detroit

Cop Changes His Tune For Camera

Texas Police Officer Fatally Shoots Handcuffed Man [GRAPHIC VIDEO]

CITIZEN PLACES CLARK COUNTY PARK DISTRICT BOARD UNDER ARREST FOR OPEN MEETINGS VIOLATION


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles

Title: Barbara Boxer: Right to Insurance Trumps Religious Freedom
Source: LN.com
URL Source: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/15/ ... ance-trumps-religious-freedom/
Published: Feb 19, 2012
Author: Steven Ertelt
Post Date: 2012-02-19 08:56:22 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 9243
Comments: 155

Barbara Boxer: Right to Insurance Trumps Religious Freedom

by Steven Ertelt

Barbara Boxer, the leading pro-abortion member of the U.S. Senate, made some comments in a recent MSNBC interview that are sparking outrage across the Internet today. Boxer essentially says the right to insurance trumps religious rights and freedoms.

The comments came during an interview concerning the controversial mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place recently requiring religious groups to pay for insurance coverage for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions.

As the Washington Examiner reports:

Senator Boxer warned yesterday that if the HHS contraception mandate was repealed it would set a dangerous precedence of religious rights trumping the right to be insured.

On MSNBC’s Politics Nation with Al Sharpton last night, Boxer affirmed that under the proposed amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt, an employer would not be forced by the government to pay for medical practices against his religion.

“I mean, are they serious? Sharpton exclaimed, “How do you make a law where an employer can decide his own religious beliefs violate your right to be insured?”

“Oh Absolutely,” Boxer said, “Let’s use an example, let’s say somebody believes that medicine doesn’t cure anybody of a disease but prayer does and then they decide no medicine.

“No medicine!” she exclaimed, “Under the Blunt amendment, they could do just that.”

The new mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place forcing religious employers to pay for insurance coverage including birth control and abortion-inducing drugs is so offensive more than 50 members of Congress will speak out against it today.

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry will hold a press conference today with supporters of the bipartisan, bicameral Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. His legislation would protect the religious liberty and conscience rights of every American who objects to being forced by the strong-arm of government to pay for drugs and procedures recently mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Related Links Tell Obama: Stop This Pro-Abortion Mandate

The Fortenberry bill currently has the support of approximately 220 Members of Congress and Senators, the most strongly-supported legislative remedy to the controversial HHS mandate. This measure would repeal the controversial mandate, amending the 2010 health care law to preserve conscience rights for religious institutions, health care providers, and small businesses who pay for health care coverage.

The press conference comes as the U.S. Senate is expected to vote soon, possibly as early as today, on an amendment that would stop the mandate President Barack Obama put in place to force religious groups to pay for insurance coverage that includes birth control and abortion-causing drugs.

Sen. Roy Blunt, a pro-life Missouri Republican, is putting forward the Blunt Amendment, #1520, again, and it is termed the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. According to information provided to LifeNews from pro-life sources on Capitol Hill, the Blunt Amendment will be the first amendment voted on when the Senate returns to the transportation bill. The amendment would allow employers to decline coverage of services in conflict with religious beliefs.

Republicans are moving swiftly with legislation, amendments, and potential hearings on the mandatethe Obama administration has put in place that forces religious employers to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs for their employees.

Congress will do what it can to fight back, starting this week, as pro-life Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, puts together a hearing on conscience rights.

“If this is what the President is willing to do in a tough election year, imagine what he will do in implementing the rest of his health care law after the election,” Issa said.

Rep. Dan Lipinski, a pro-life Illinois Democrat, and a host of Republicans from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), will hold a hearing entitled, “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” on Thursday, February 16th at 9:30AM in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

On Thursday, Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and others offered Amendment #1520 to ensure Obamacare cannot be used to force health plan issuers or healthcare providers to furnish insurance coverage for drugs, devices, and services contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions. However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat, blocked the amendment.

Leading pro-life groups, including Americans United for Life, are urging support for the Amendment, which could be added to another piece of legislation.

“The Obama Administration continued its unprecedented attack on Americans’ freedom of conscience by refusing to reverse its mandate that nearly all insurance plans must provide full coverage of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved “contraception,” including the abortion-inducing drug ella,” the organization said in an action alert to its members. “We must urge the Senate to protect Americans’ freedom of conscience by supporting Amendment #1520, which would protect the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in healthcare coverage that is consistent with one’s religious beliefs and moral convictions.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement saying Obama’s revised mandate involves “needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions” and it urged Congress to overturn the rule and promised a potential lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidates had been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the original mandate on religious employers, which is not popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some Democrats oppose.

Congressman Steve Scalise has led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its mandate forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees.

Bishops across the country have spoken out against the original mandate and are considering a lawsuit against it — with bishops in more than 164 locations across the United States issuing public statements against it or having letters opposing it printed in diocesan newspaper or read from the pulpit.

“We cannot — we will not comply with this unjust law,” said the letter from Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix. “People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens.”

The original mandate was so egregious that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates religious freedom.”

The administration initially approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program.

The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drug that causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days.

The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that “require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute, which advises the federal government and shut out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.


Poster Comment:

Now we know where a few people on here get their justification for implementing ObozoCare!!!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-54) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#55. To: mininggold, we the people (#50)

do you agree with the separation of church and state? after all it was just one man's opinion and written in a personal letter.

freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-02-19   14:47:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: mininggold (#50)

You said it yourself, he was ONE of the framers. Obviously they didn't all agree. The Federalist papers were written by various framers to give their opinion because, again, obviously they didn't all agree.

Anymore than those who write and pass laws now can always agree on intent.

You're actually making a better argument than I believe you know.

The two primary authors of the The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[9][10] Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[11] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[12]

While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.[13]

Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[14] in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[15] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[16] To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

However, another framer, Thomas Jefferson stated;

1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.

To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

In my book, that's two framers to one on the original intent of the general welfare clause.

We The People  posted on  2012-02-19   14:49:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: A K A Stone (#51)

So Santorum can kill liberals under the general welfare clause. It would be in our best interests if there were no liberals screwing things up.

ahhh...dark humor, and to the point....I like it!

freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-02-19   14:50:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: freedomsnotfree (#57)

ahhh...dark humor, and to the point....I like it!

You understand that everything I say isn't totally serious. Some people don't.

A K A Stone  posted on  2012-02-19   14:52:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: A K A Stone (#58)

You understand that everything I say isn't totally serious. Some people don't.

no bad for them...that was funny...while at the same time conveying the point perfectly.

freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-02-19   14:54:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: mininggold (#52)

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Albert Gallatin, dated June 16, 1817;

"You will have learned that an act for internal improvement, after passing both houses, was negatived by the President. The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the constitution, which authorizes Congress 'to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,' was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the federal doctrine. Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only land-mark which now divides the federalists* from the republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action: consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

We The People  posted on  2012-02-19   14:57:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: We The People (#60)

Jefferson explains it perfectly. It is so obvious that the liberals twist and shred the constitution. They are its enemies.

A K A Stone  posted on  2012-02-19   15:00:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: We The People (#56)

In my book, that's two framers to one on the original intent of the general welfare clause.

It still means nothing, if the citizens vote for reps that go with one intent over the other.

Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET

mininggold  posted on  2012-02-19   15:02:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: A K A Stone (#61)

Jefferson explains it perfectly. It is so obvious that the liberals twist and shred the constitution. They are its enemies.

You black/white 'Divided We Fall' lovers make me laugh.

Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET

mininggold  posted on  2012-02-19   15:03:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: mininggold (#62)

It still means nothing,

Words do have meaning miningblood.

A K A Stone  posted on  2012-02-19   15:04:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: mininggold (#63)

You black/white 'Divided We Fall' lovers make me laugh.

It is black and white. There are no shades of gray.

A K A Stone  posted on  2012-02-19   15:04:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: mininggold (#62)

It still means nothing

...or course not. Communists, and those of their ilk, think limitations on government are meaningless.

freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-02-19   15:06:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: A K A Stone (#64)

miningblood.

Heh good Christian..... you got that right!

Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET

mininggold  posted on  2012-02-19   15:07:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: freedomsnotfree (#66)

...or course not. Communists, and those of their ilk, think limitations on government are meaningless.

Do you still see still Communists under your bed every night?

Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET

mininggold  posted on  2012-02-19   15:08:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: A K A Stone (#65)

It is black and white. There are no shades of gray.

Only to the mentally ill.

Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET

mininggold  posted on  2012-02-19   15:09:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: mininggold (#68)

no...I can see them here...when you post. Answer the question, coward.

freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-02-19   15:11:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: freedomsnotfree (#70)

no...I can see them here...when you post. Answer the question, coward.

You have no idea what a communist country is. Try looking at Israel.

Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET

mininggold  posted on  2012-02-19   15:14:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: mininggold (#71)

answer the question or I'm done with the conversation. Why are YOU so privileged,so special, you are entitled to the fruits or another persons labor???

freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-02-19   15:17:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: mininggold (#62)

It still means nothing

It means that health care is not a right and it also means that Congress acts in a manner inconsistent with the US Constitution, at will.

We The People  posted on  2012-02-19   15:20:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: freedomsnotfree (#72)

answer the question or I'm done with the conversation. Why are YOU so privileged,so special, you are entitled to the fruits or another persons labor???

I really could care less, since YOU seem to think I initiated this conversation with you

Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET

mininggold  posted on  2012-02-19   15:23:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: We The People (#73)

It means that health care is not a right and it also means that Congress acts in a manner inconsistent with the US Constitution, at will.

It means that opinion is divided.

Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET

mininggold  posted on  2012-02-19   15:23:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: mininggold (#74)

crickets...crickets...crickets

freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-02-19   15:25:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: freedomsnotfree (#17)

Why do you feel entilted to the fruits of another persons labors? Is that not the very diffinition of slavery?

I look at it like this. Would I rather have some person who is well off paying a little more in taxes or would I rather see people not get the health care they need when they need it and risking death or becoming severely ill. Explain to me why I should care about the plight of the well off individual in this situation?

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-02-19   15:29:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: NewsJunky (#77) (Edited)

I look at it like this. Would I rather have some person who is well off paying a little more in taxes or would I rather see people not get the health care they need when they need it and risking death or becoming severely ill.

Death and severe illness cannot be legislated away. Even the best insurance and health care that other peoples money can buy will not stop us from dying or becoming severely ill. None of us are getting off this planet alive.

Explain to me why I should care about the plight of the well off individual in this situation?

That's not the issue. The issue is whether health care is a right, (as in constitutional) or if government has the right to tax you to pay for others health care.

They are already taxing you to feed others, even others in other countries. How much of your labor are you willing to give to others, involuntarily?

We The People  posted on  2012-02-19   15:49:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: NewsJunky (#77) (Edited)

who defines "well off". Why should anyone become a slave to the needs, wants or desires of another...and unless you have given everything you own to the poor, you are a hypocrite. Forcefully taking from someone, that which they have toiled for is slavery, it places the thief in a position of king, and those stolen from, in the position of serf. The degree of theft is irrelevant.

freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-02-19   15:50:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: We The People (#78)

Even the best insurance and health care that other peoples money can buy will not stop us from dying or becoming severely ill. None of us are getting off this planet alive.

So? What does that have to do with people getting the health care they need when they need it? The current system we have now with people using the emergency rooms in a crisis is not a solution.

The issue is whether health care is a right, (as in constitutional)

Its not a right and neither is food but we have programs to provide for food.

or if government has the right to tax you to pay for others health care.

The government has the "right" to tax you for "whatever" the government through its elected leaders decided to enact into law.

How much of your labor are you willing to give to others, involuntarily?

I don't know if have an exact number. If I look at specific proposal I could give you my opinion of them.

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-02-19   16:12:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: freedomsnotfree (#79)

who defines "well off".

Well take a family making $300,000. If we raise the top marginal rate 4%. That family would end up paying $2000 more in taxes. I would consider that a well off family and the increase reasonable with little effect on their standard of living. Now you can call this family "serfs" but I would call them living the American dream.

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-02-19   16:17:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: NewsJunky (#80)

The government has the "right" to tax you for "whatever" the government through its elected leaders decided to enact into law.

No, I'm afraid they do not, as has been clarified in this thread.

We The People  posted on  2012-02-19   16:39:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: We The People (#82)

No, I'm afraid they do not,

Your opinion is irrelevant. The Supreme Court decides what the government can and can't do.

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-02-19   16:58:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: NewsJunky (#83)

Your opinion is irrelevant.

LOL!

It's not my opinion. It's the opinions of 2 of the framers of the US Constitution. I just happen to agree.

We The People  posted on  2012-02-19   17:07:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: NewsJunky (#80)

The government has the "right" to tax you for "whatever" the government through its elected leaders decided to enact into law.

The Supreme Court decides what the government can and can't do.

LOL!

OK, which is it?

Does .gov have unlimited power or doesn't it?

We The People  posted on  2012-02-19   17:09:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: NewsJunky (#81)

why should the family making 300k, 400k or 75k be responsible for the needs, wants or desires of anybody. Marx said "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"... This is one of the ten planks of the Communist manifesto. Do you agree with this?

freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-02-19   17:10:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: NewsJunky (#80)

I don't know if have an exact number. If I look at specific proposal I could give you my opinion of them.

well, we are 15 Trillion dollars in debt...where's the money coming from. Obviously the government you worship has corrupted itself beyond measure...and the poor are poorer, the uneducated more abundant, the unemployment exploded, the middle class is being wiped out...and you want to give them MORE of that which they have already used to bring this about. You need to SERIOUSLY re- evaluate your premises. Since the introduction of socialism/communism in this country, we've gone from the wealthiest nation on the planet, the the greatest debtor nation.

freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-02-19   17:20:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: freedomsnotfree (#86)

Well take a family making $300,000. If we raise the top marginal rate 4%. That family would end up paying $2000 more in taxes. I would consider that a well off family and the increase reasonable with little effect on their standard of living. Now you can call this family "serfs" but I would call them living the American dream.

Marx said "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"... This is one of the ten planks of the Communist manifesto. Do you agree with this?

I'd say the verdict is already in on that question.

We The People  posted on  2012-02-19   17:21:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: We The People (#85)

Does .gov have unlimited power or doesn't it?

according to a few posters here the government is omnipotent. Nikita Khrushchev was right...the communists would destroy this country without firing a shot...they got hold of the educational system and the rest is history.

freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-02-19   17:24:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: We The People (#84)

It's not my opinion. It's the opinions of 2 of the framers of the US Constitution. I just happen to agree.

Its a legal matter that the Supreme Court has and can deal with. Your "opinion" about the constitutionality of a law (whatever your sources) is "irrelevant."

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-02-19   17:30:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: We The People (#88)

I'd say the verdict is already in on that question.

Amazing isn't it...these people think they are entitled to the income of others. Sickening really...I have more respect for the beggar on the street.

freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-02-19   17:31:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: We The People (#85)

Does .gov have unlimited power or doesn't it?

Has the Supreme Court given the government "unlimited" powers?

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-02-19   17:31:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: NewsJunky (#90)

the gravy train is about to end for you and your fellow, "you owe me" thinkers. The coming collapse will put an end to ALL entitlement programs...deal with it.

freedomsnotfree  posted on  2012-02-19   17:33:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: NewsJunky (#90)

Its a legal matter that the Supreme Court has and can deal with. Your "opinion" about the constitutionality of a law (whatever your sources) is "irrelevant."

But...isn't that your opinion? LOL!

This is a political forum. We all espouse our opinions and mine is just as 'relevant' as anyone elses. That's what a forum is for. Some of us happen to post documented facts too, to back up our opinions. You should try that, instead of stomping your feet when you read something you don't like.

We The People  posted on  2012-02-19   17:36:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: NewsJunky (#92)

Has the Supreme Court given the government "unlimited" powers?

No, YOU DID when you said, "The government has the "right" to tax you for "whatever" the government through its elected leaders decided to enact into law".

Even though you and I both know that isn't true.

We The People  posted on  2012-02-19   17:38:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (96 - 155) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com