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: 92078
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 As the Washington Examiner reports: Senator Boxer warned yesterday that if the HHS contraception mandate was repealed it would set a dangerous precedence of religious rights trumping the right to be insured.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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: CZ82 (#0)
Straw man. Health care is a right. Also good bizness....;} Pay your taxes, stop receiving Fed Aid and you can do whatever you want....;}
Where is that right listed in the US Constitution?
Are you saying we are only allowed to have the rights directly listed in the constitutions?
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
OK. The US Gov't gets out of the Health Care bizness. Starting with making ANY HMO and Other Corporation Unconstitutional. You first.
Are you saying we are only allowed to have the rights directly listed in the constitutions? No. If I had said that, my post would have read, "we are only allowed to have the rights directly listed in the constitution". I asked a question. That question was... Where is that right (health care) listed in the US Constitution? If you can't or wont address what I ACTUALLY said, why bother to respond? We know that health care is not a listed right in the US Constitution. Can either of you tell me where it is even insinuated?
Starting with making ANY HMO and Other Corporation Unconstitutional. You first. What Article, Section or Clause in the US Constitution gives the federal government authority to involve itself in the health care of it's citizens in the first place?
We know that health care is not a listed right in the US Constitution. Can either of you tell me where it is even insinuated? If we have rights other than those directly listed in the Constitution, why would it matter? Then why did you ask the question? But a god given right covers lots of territory especially when the constitution explicitly mentions the 'general welfare'.
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
The Preamble.
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
Do you know the difference between "provide for" and "promote"? Health Care is not a right and you have yet to show me how it is.
You have the right to purchase health insurance...you don't have the right to have the government steal money from me and buy it for you...understand the concept?
Yet it's okay to have them do the same to provide a militia for defense? Or do you guys want to go back to the good old days of those wonderful feudal mercenary armies?
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
Yes, because the militia, for the common defense, is listed in the US Constitution. Multiple times.
The 'free msrket' has failed in it's ability to provide the means 'to promote the general welfare'.
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
Defense of the country is one of the very few stated functions of the federal government. I'm not responsible for your housing, food, clothing, safety or welfare ...nor should I be. I'm assuming you're an adult.
Multiple times. Tell me how you keep the soldiers healthy if you don't have a system that promotes general welfare? Oh that's right! They are special citizens with special rights and one is their very own right to healthcare. No where in the constitution does it mention a caste system of special rights for certain categories of citizens.
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
Actually the only department mentioned in the constitution is the Post Office.
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
Why do you feel entilted to the fruits of another persons labors? Is that not the very diffinition of slavery?
I'd be fine with that
Why do you feel certain citizens are deserving of rights not accorded to the rest of us?
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
No, they hold a job with paid health care as part of their benefits package.
Is it possible to sustain a healthy economy with a sickly workforce?
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
Really... so why do they get it for the rest of their lives, even after they leave that employment. Which usually occurs at a fairly young age?
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
Is it possible to sustain a healthy economy with a sickly workforce? Is it possible that you two will stop putting forth your opinions and show me how or where health care is a right?
Henry Kaiser didn't think so.
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
Really... so why do they get it for the rest of their lives, even after they leave that employment. Which usually occurs at a fairly young age? Because that is the deal that your government offers. If you want free health care, join the military. Want to hear something really crazy? I was in the military, yet I have never been to a VA hospital or received any kind of government paid health care. I prefer to pay for my own health care.
Is it possible for you to stop whining about other posters here? I already told you it was in the Preamble.
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
If you want free health care, join the military. Want to hear something really crazy? I was in the military, yet I have never been to a VA hospital or received any kind of government paid health care. It's nice to know you think certain special citizens, of which you are one, should have certain guaranteed lifetime rights. Whether you use them or not is immaterial.
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
LOL! I don't think that, and I have not stated that I think that. Simply because your government OFFERS free (and sucky, just ask any vet) health care for veterans doesn't mean that I think they are special citizens, or that they are deserving of any special rights, OR that I believe that health care is a right of veterans. Why do you make this stuff up and attribute it to me?
There are much better arguments than the preamble, that ARE listed in the Constitution, but I'm not going to present them for you. I can also show you how those arguments are false, but if you don't know or can't find them, then that point is moot.
You will die quicker without food than you will without health care. Is food a right? Water? Is gasoline for your car a right? Are lottery tickets a right?
It is also in Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
...such as?
part of the employment package and benefits...you want those benefits...go join the military
I've never been a vet and I don't get the benefits...I understand that...why don't you?
The military has never open to all who would like to join. And for most of it's existence it excluded women from all but some support and positions in nursing for which it required a BSN.
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
Unless you are We The People I wasn't posting that to you. But no, I don't understand the concept of a special citizen class that has it's own health care system especially dedicated and restricted to those certain citizens and even certain non citizens. And that sure wasn't mentioned in the Constitution. You do understand that don't 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
So you admit it's in the Constitution.
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
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States... Very good! And here is part of what Madison says in Federalist 41: It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.” But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter......... But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? The powers conferred in Article 1, Section 8, are enumerated after the general opening statement, and strangely enough, no mention of welfare payments or free health care is found.
nice try...that's certainly NOT the case now, and hasn't been for decades. You never answered my question...why do you feel entitled to the fruits of another persons labor?That's called slavery... or, is that OK with you because you are on the receiving end?
So you admit it's in the Constitution. No, I said there are much better arguments than the preamble and that I could also prove those better arguments false. lucysmom just found one of them, but I had to show the original intent as described by Madison, to refute the general statement of Article 1, Section 8.
Stop trying to make it personal. It was the case for a distinct majority of citizens now alive in the US. And they have never, ever taken the infirm.
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
This was one man's opinion. The Federalist Papers are not part of the Constitution and as such have no direct bearing. The framers were free to include limitations to the phrase if they so desired.
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
why should they...it's not in their hiring policies to do so. why do you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to answer the question...WHY are you, are anyone else, ENTITLED to the fruits of any persons labor...THAT by definition is slavery.
...who are you referring to?
...funny how the liberals reference Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists church about the separation of church and state and use it ALL THE TIME. It was a personal letter...not the federalist paper. Liberals are the master of twist...are they not.
This was one man's opinion. The Federalist Papers are not part of the Constitution and as such have no direct bearing. The framers were free to include limitations to the phrase if they so desired. I'm not sure how to respond to that, because I'm not even sure if you're being serious. That one man, was James Madison aka Publius, who was one of the framers of the constitution. The Federalist papers were written to explain the constitution to the people of the state of New York and explicitly explains the original intent of the framers.
Any one older than forty five.
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
And they did, as Madison explains in Federalist 41, by enumerating those powers below the general statement. Those enumerated powers below the general statement, were the totality of powers granted to Congress in the constitution to 'provide for the common defense and general welfare".
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.
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
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.
So are you saying the lack of health care is akin to murder?
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
I'm saying if you stretch the general welfare clause. Don't be surprised if someone else stretches it to your demise.
that would include me...and I have no problem with it. Fighting wars, even ILLEGAL ones, is a young persons game...now, answer the question.
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.
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.
ahhh...dark humor, and to the point....I like it!
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.
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.
Jefferson explains it perfectly. It is so obvious that the liberals twist and shred the constitution. They are its enemies.
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
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
Words do have meaning miningblood.
It is black and white. There are no shades of gray.
...or course not. Communists, and those of their ilk, think limitations on government are meaningless.
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
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
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
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
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???
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.
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
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
crickets...crickets...crickets
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
No, I'm afraid they do not, as has been clarified in this thread.
Your opinion is irrelevant. The Supreme Court decides what the government can and can't do.
LOL! It's not my opinion. It's the opinions of 2 of the framers of the US Constitution. I just happen to agree.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Has the Supreme Court given the government "unlimited" powers?
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.
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.
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.
Because the modern civilized world has collectively decided to that government should play a role in helping poor people. If you don't like it you can move to Somalia. I don't think they have any government sponsored welfare programs there at all. If I am wrong and they do, i guess you are probably out of luck.
I should have qualified my statement by saying that as long the SP doesn't strike it down.
actually...I'd say NJ is right. They take your tax dollars and use it however they see fit...even illegal wars. I grew up in an era when we were told "nobody owes you anything"...what a different mindset we have today.
And there it is! The constitution be damned, you want the government to do what makes you feel good, regardless of whether or not government has that legal authority, because the modern civilized world has collectively decided. You should love both Bush and Obama then. Bush lobbied for and signed into law the single largest entitlement program this country had ever seen, until Obamacare of course. Are you a fan of both Bush and Obama?
the "modern civilized world" is not, and never have been free. based on your judgement the government should come in and take EVERYTHING you own and give it to the less "fortunate". Stealing someone's hard earned money is ANYTHING but "civilized"... I was in Russia before the wall came down...they would laugh at your ignorant nativity. no one is "EQUAL" until everyone is equally poor...except the very, very few in Government positions deciding what's "BEST" for the people. How old are you? The fact you think you are "owed" anything is absurd. You're a victim...with a victims mindset.
The supreme court does not have the authority to make law or amend the constitution, but that doesn't stop them from trying. Congress is too corrupt to remove them when they violate their "term of good behavior". Most of them don't even know what good behavior is.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
LOL! And...when was that meeting held? Was a vote taken? Was the constitution amended and I'm not aware of it?
You mean..as long as it's authorized by the US Constitution. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes for the specific, enumerated activities listed in Article 1, Section 8; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
And...when was that meeting held? Was a vote taken? We the people (ha ha) did it through our government. We decided along with all of the other modern societies to provide help for the poor. Was the constitution amended and I'm not aware of it? The Supreme Court decides what is unconstitutional. Not you or me..
Take it up with the Supreme Court. I am not a constitutional scholar..
Who said anything about equality? That's not realistic and not what I am talking about.
Well, maybe if you became a bit more informed, perhaps you could form your own opinion, and not just follow orders and others like a bleating sheep, and tell others, on a political discussion forum, that their opinion is irrelevant on a subject that you yourself are ignorant of. From the conception of the SCOTUS, and up until 1937, the SCOTUS agreed exactly with what I'm telling you. Then something changed and suddenly, the SCOTUS conferred upon Congress a plenary power, and they could now decide at their will and discretion. So the SCOTUS has ruled BOTH ways, the latter now for all of 75 years. Now you tell me, which do you think is correct or which do you agree with... that Congress' power is limited, as the Constitution and the Federalist Papers dictate, or that the power of Congress is unlimited and subject to their whim, and that they can do whatever they like? Do you live in a Constitutional Republic or a monarchy? And why the sudden change of philosophy in 1937 in Helvering v. Davis? Start your discovery of knowledge here; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause then form an opinion and come back and discuss it here, on a political discussion forum.
No. What Article, Section or Clause in the US Constitution gives Corporations the right to exist. If you're bringing the Constitution into this debate, The First is Who Authorized Corporations. I'll live free and die (per Health Care) but there can't be a Corporation on my neck....;}
I bothered to respond. Saying you're comparing oranges and apples.
I don't even have any apples or oranges. I have chips and cheese though!
If you're talking about corporate personhood, then we agree. Corporations are not people.
Since more and more countries are starting to travel down the path of more freedoms and less taxes it won't take long before quite a few Americans figure this out and move to those countries..... taking all of their money and assets with them leaving nothing for the Leftard leeches of this country.....
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
we are headed for so very interesting times...and the "you owe me" crowd is going to be in for a rude wake-up call.
Especially after the handouts stop and they decide to come to my house to "TRY" to liberate some of my personal possessions!!!
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
...believe it...I moved out of a major city years ago...I'm on 9 acres in the country, in a "town" of 4,500 folks...his kind won't be very welcome around here.
They're already not welcome around here, the city council have decided they will not allow the RTA to have bus stops anywhere around any of the local business establishments... I.E. "You ruined your side of town so we aren't going to allow you to ruin our side of town"
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
no bus stops here...or close to here. We can count the stop lights on both hands, easily. Most folks have been here for generations...so the interloper will be easily identified. The "you owe me" folks in the city won't last long...they're not many of those types in the country...not easy enough for them.
That is long time for ruling to stay in effect. Sounds like settled law. I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't have opinions on such complex areas of law. I do have faith in the people in most instances to make the right decisions regarding the law. And trust that court will make the right decision when it comes to the constitutionality of any law. And you find very broad support for Social Security, Medicare, and other social welfare programs. You should change your name from WTP to my view of the constitution and screw what the people want.
LMAO!!! OK, I'll take that into consideration. See, this is what is frustrating about idiots like you. For whatever reason, you think other peoples opinions on constitutional issues don't matter, on a political discussion forum, on a thread dealing with a constitutional issue. You'd rather play your childish and ignorant oneupmanship game, and you're not even good at that! What is ya boy, stupid? You admit you don't know anything about the subject, but you have the gall to pretend to tell someone else who reads everything he can find on constitutional issues that his opinion doesn't matter? LOL! In a place DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE TO POST THEIR OPINIONS AND DISCUSS THEM! And all because my opinion hurts your delicate little sensibilities? I know, let's talk about something that won't make you cry and that you do know about. Say... Oh, I don't know, maybe American Idol? Will that stop your vagina from bleeding?
LOL! You're admitting that you also don't know anything about history.
The Constitution was written so the people could read it and understand it...the fact you can't, or want it to read differently than it was written, is telling. And as far as what people want...I could care less, it seems to me at one time the people of Germany wanted to exterminate a lot of Jews...does that make it right. You never answered the mans questions....is government limited in its power by the Constitution or does it have unlimited power...oh, that's right...you don't "have" opinions...as long as you can benefit from the hard work of others. You really are a "special" kind of stupid aren't you.
Rules for Leftards #45). Why are you taking it personally that I make my entire living off of people like you that actually do something useful???
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
That is long time for ruling to stay in effect. Sounds like settled law. There is no such thing as 'settled law'. The general welfare clause was interpreted as it was written in the Constitution and explained in the federalist papers, for 150 years prior to 1937. Sound like 'settled law'?
HOW DARE you want to keep what you earn!!! It's MINE, MINE all MINE!! lol
Rules for Leftards #25). Why are you mad that I can afford to go on a vacation with “your” tax money and you can’t!!!
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
A constitutional issue is not a political issue. It is one that the courts deal with. And it is very complex legal issue which requires one to have a in depth understanding of the case law and precedents. I don't have that kind of understanding. What are your qualifications? How valuable or definitive should I consider your opinions on the matter
I think I did answer it. I said when the Supreme Court strikes down a law then the court limits the power of Congress or President. So yes the government does not have unlimited power.
So what happens when the appointees are communist/globalist minded judges that think the Constitution is an outdated document and we should move toward international law... are "we the people" supposed to ignore the Constitution just because 9 people in black robes say we should.
Sound like 'settled law'? Considering the number of laws passed since that time dealing with the issue and consequently the opportunities to overturn the ruling, I would call it "settled law." But I realize how happy you would be to return us to the the 19th century in terms of our welfare state. What a glorious time for the poor and elderly that was.
Well if enough people agree with you, you can change the constitution any way you want. You can also tell the Congress to end welfare programs. That would be your best bet.
POOR!!! You do realize this welfare/warfare state has put us 15 TRILLION dollars in debt...RIGHT!!! you REALIZE THIS RIGHT!!! You realize the middle class is being completely wiped out before our eyes and that we've gone from the wealthiest nation on the planet to the largest debtor nation in history of the world...there are MORE poor people, not less, since "redistribution" was considered "civilized". Oh, and in case we're wondering where all the confiscated money went...look at the growth of the government...it was NEVER intended to help the people...it was their so they're could take the lions share of what they fleeced for the people....and create a dependent society. I hope you're ready for the collapse...it's coming...THEN how will the poor and elderly make it. Take a GOOD look at Greece...
I won't have to tell Congress anything...the shows over and we're broke...the gravy train is going to crash to a halt...it's inevitable and unavoidable...thank goodness, it's way past time.
Fiction, no basis in fact. The supreme court ruled that Sam had to buy a license to live on Indian land. Andy Jackson said NO. Congress said NO. The voters said NO, and elected Jackson to a second term. Everyone flipped off the supreme court, and lived happily ever after. End of story.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Why Greece? Why not Iceland
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
we can prey we throw off the shackles of the Federal reserve and the international bankers, but Iceland is a very close nit community and the "you owe me" mentality is not there. Wait till the welfare, WIC, rent subsidies, and all the government checks come to a halt...think Katrina...only nationwide.
I wouldn't blame the current growth in spending on the welfare state but on financial crisis and the housing crisis. I think it was a mistake for Bush to not pay for the wars or for the Medicare drug program along with the tax cuts. Each of those has also contributed to our deficits since Obama took office.
There is way to solve the problem that involves both spending cuts and tax increases that can solve the problem and they will figure it out in the end.
the housing crisis had NOTHING to do with the debt...the debt has grown exponentially for years and we are coming to the end of fractional reserve banking. It will end as it ALWAYS does...hyperinflation. What we are witnessing is global welfare, where this country is bailing out poorer countries through the banking system...we are being brought down to their level, at the expense of the middle class. Governments hate the middle class because they can't control them...so the solution is to spend them into oblivion. Welcome to the communist/global government...or, to quote Bush...the "New World Order".
you don't understand fractional reserve banking or you won't have made that statement...it is of no matter, the collapse is inevitable and unavoidable. Educate youself and you will no this is true. "This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." — Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913 "We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it". — Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa) "Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities, intrinsically, a 'dollar' bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries." — Modern Money Mechanics Workbook, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1975
You should consider my opinions however you'd like, but if you can't refute them, with facts, then you should be on your way and leave the discussion to others. Bringing your emotions into the conversation and allowing my opinions to hurt your feelings is, quite frankly, stupid. We're on a discussion forum, and guess what scooter, you don't get to decide what issues I discuss or what opinions I put forth. I gave you nothing but facts in this thread. Fact 1; the SCOTUS interpreted the General Welfare clause according to the Constitution and the Federalist #41 explanation, for 150 years. Fact 2; In 1937 that changed and Congress has since been allowed to tax for whatever purpose they see fit. Fact 3; MY OPINION is that the founders original intent was interpreted correctly for the first 150 years. Now, if you can't discuss those facts without getting your feelings hurt, calling people names, telling others their opinions don't matter and generally being a pain in the ass who derails the conversation like you have, then maybe you shouldn't discuss issues that you can't contribute to.
I think I did answer it. I said when the Supreme Court strikes down a law then the court limits the power of Congress or President. It's interesting that you made no mention of the US Constitution when speaking of limits on government power. Do you believe the Constitution limits government power? Is the court the only arbiter?
Uhhhh, yes it is. It is one that the courts deal with. And I have an opinion on the matter, and I am allowed to discuss that opinion here, on a political discussion forum. And it is very complex legal issue which requires one to have a in depth understanding of the case law and precedents. Yes, and the engine in my truck is very complex mechanical issue, yet if it throws a rod, spins a bearing or bends a valve, I can pull it out, take it apart and repair the damage. My home is a very complex structure, but if a tree falls on it, I can not only remove the tree but also repair the home. Just like I can discuss constitutional issues on a political discussion forum. I don't have that kind of understanding. Yes, we're aware of that. Not only have you repeatedly told us all that, you have repeatedly shown it. In this thread alone, I have shown a level of knowledge of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Supreme Court, case law AND the history between the 4 that you admit you know nothing about. What makes you feel that my opinion, put forth on a political discussion forum, on a thread dealing with a constitutional issue, in a conversation that didn't involve you, doesn't matter?
And that's exactly right. Get rid of Corporations and you've fixed the Health Care problem.
I have chips and cheese though! And how come there's no apple ice cream and only orange sherbet. And chips, cheese and apples go together but not oranges, chips and cheese...;}
Hey! LMAO!! There is no apple ice cream! WTH?
Hey! LMAO!! There is no apple ice cream! WTH? ;}
BS Before Bush took office we were working to pay down the debt.
ABSOULTE BS!!! We were working on paying down the deficit...HUGE difference. How are you EVER going to pay down the debt when ALL money is BORROWED into circulation...what part of that do you not grasp.
Was our debt growing exponentially at the end of the 90's or not?
What are going to use to pay off the debt...remember EVERY dollar brought into circulation represents debt...so what will you use...below is the debt and how it's ALWAYS gone up... Date Amount 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 09/28/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66 09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03 09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25 09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32 09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16 09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00 09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42 12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88 12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 * 12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 * 12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 * 12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 * 12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00 * 12/31/1979 845,116,000,000.00 * 12/29/1978 789,207,000,000.00 * 12/30/1977 718,943,000,000.00 * 12/31/1976 653,544,000,000.00 * 12/31/1975 576,649,000,000.00 * 12/31/1974 492,665,000,000.00 * 12/31/1973 469,898,039,554.70 12/29/1972 449,298,066,119.00 12/31/1971 424,130,961,959.95 12/31/1970 389,158,403,690.26 12/31/1969 368,225,581,254.41 12/31/1968 358,028,625,002.91 12/29/1967 344,663,009,745.18 12/30/1966 329,319,249,366.68 12/31/1965 320,904,110,042.04 12/31/1964 317,940,472,718.38 12/31/1963 309,346,845,059.17 12/31/1962 303,470,080,489.27 12/29/1961 296,168,761,214.92 12/30/1960 290,216,815,241.68 12/31/1959 290,797,771,717.63 12/31/1958 282,922,423,583.87 12/31/1957 274,897,784,290.72 12/31/1956 276,627,527,996.11 12/30/1955 280,768,553,188.96 12/31/1954 278,749,814,391.33 12/31/1953 275,168,120,129.39 06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57 06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43 06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93 06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04 06/30/1949 252,770,359,860.33 06/30/1948 252,292,246,512.99 06/30/1947 258,286,383,108.67 06/28/1946 269,422,099,173.26 06/30/1945 258,682,187,409.93 06/30/1944 201,003,387,221.13 06/30/1943 136,696,090,329.90 06/30/1942 72,422,445,116.22 06/30/1941 48,961,443,535.71 06/29/1940 42,967,531,037.68 06/30/1939 40,439,532,411.11 06/30/1938 37,164,740,315.45 06/30/1937 36,424,613,732.29 06/30/1936 33,778,543,493.73 06/29/1935 28,700,892,624.53 06/30/1934 27,053,141,414.48 06/30/1933 22,538,672,560.15 06/30/1932 19,487,002,444.13 06/30/1931 16,801,281,491.71 06/30/1930 16,185,309,831.43 06/29/1929 16,931,088,484.10 06/30/1928 17,604,293,201.43 06/30/1927 18,511,906,931.85 06/30/1926 19,643,216,315.19 06/30/1925 20,516,193,887.90 06/30/1924 21,250,812,989.49 06/30/1923 22,349,707,365.36 06/30/1922 22,963,381,708.31 06/30/1921 23,977,450,552.54 07/01/1920 25,952,456,406.16 07/01/1919 27,390,970,113.12 07/01/1918 14,592,161,414.00 07/01/1917 5,717,770,279.52 07/01/1916 3,609,244,262.16 07/01/1915 3,058,136,873.16 07/01/1914 2,912,499,269.16 07/01/1913 2,916,204,913.66 07/01/1912 2,868,373,874.16 07/01/1911 2,765,600,606.69 07/01/1910 2,652,665,838.04 07/01/1909 2,639,546,241.04 07/01/1908 2,626,806,271.54 07/01/1907 2,457,188,061.54 07/01/1906 2,337,161,839.04 07/01/1905 2,274,615,063.84 07/01/1904 2,264,003,585.14 07/01/1903 2,202,464,781.89 07/01/1902 2,158,610,445.89 07/01/1901 2,143,326,933.89 07/01/1900 2,136,961,091.67 * denotes a rounding up to nearest million NOTE 1: The National Debt has not gone down (from year to year) since the end of the Dwight Eisenhower administration. NOTE 2: World War I increased the Debt by $25
ABSOLUTELY!!
ABSOLUTELY!! Really? In fact the growth of debt was "slowing down" (not growing exponentially) as deficits were falling during this time.
It took us over 200 years to reach the first Trillion in debt in 1981...we were 3.2 trillion in debt by 1990. Within 10 years the debt ALMOST doubled to 5.6 Trillion by 2000...since 2000 we've gone another 10+ Trillion (almost double, but MUCH bigger numbers) in debt and now we're going in debt well over a Trillion per year...yeah, you're right...what took us 200 years to achieve, we now do in about 9 months...and YOU don't call that exponential...put the crack pipe down, it's effecting your judgement. You never answered the question...what are you going to use to pay off this debt...remember ALL money is put into circulation as debt...for every $100 put in circulation...$100 is added to the debt. In addition to the debt of $100, there is interest that is charged...
and YOU don't call that exponential...put the crack pipe down, it's effecting your judgement. Yes it started growing exponentially after Bush took office not DURING THE LATTER HALF OF THE 1990's WHEN IT WAS SLOWING DOWN. Sheesh.. How many times do I repeat this for it to sink in? ithin 10 years the debt ALMOST doubled to 5.6 Trillion by 2000...since 2000 we've gone another 10+ Trillion It was slowing down by 2000 and if not for the needless war in Iraq, the tax cuts, and not paying for the medicare drug benefit we wouldn't be in the fiscal situation we now find ourselves in. You never answered the question...what are you going to use to pay off this debt...remember ALL money is put into circulation as debt...for every $100 put in circulation...$100 is added to the debt. In addition to the debt of $100, there is interest that is charged... I am don't know what you are talking about. All we have to do is begin to balance the budget, and then after the budget is balanced, start paying down the debt.
This is true...you don't understand fractional reserve banking so, until you educate yourself, you WON'T understand.
#2. To: mcgowanjm (#1)
Health care is a right.
#3. To: We The People (#2)
Where is that right listed in the US Constitution?
#4. To: We The People (#2)
(Edited)
Where is that right listed in the US Constitution?
#5. To: mininggold, mcgowanjm (#3)
(Edited)
Where is that right listed in the US Constitution?
#6. To: mcgowanjm (#4)
OK. The US Gov't gets out of the Health Care bizness.
#7. To: We The People (#5)
f you can't or wont address what I ACTUALLY said, why bother to respond?
#8. To: We The People (#6)
What Article, Section or Clause in the US Constitution gives the federal government authority to involve itself in the health care of it's citizens in the first place?
#9. To: mininggold (#7)
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
#10. To: mininggold (#7)
#11. To: freedomsnotfree (#10)
You have the right to purchase health insurance...you don't have the right to have the government steal money from me and buy it for you...understand the concept?
#12. To: mininggold (#11)
Yet it's okay to have them do the same to provide a militia for defense?
#13. To: We The People (#9)
Do you know the difference between "provide for" and "promote"?
#14. To: mininggold (#11)
#15. To: We The People (#12)
Yes, because the militia, for the common defense, is listed in the US Constitution.
#16. To: freedomsnotfree (#14)
Defense of the country is one of the very few stated functions of the federal government. I'm not responsible for your housing, food, clothing, safety or welfare ...nor should I be. I'm assuming you're an adult.
#17. To: mininggold (#15)
#18. To: mininggold (#16)
#19. To: freedomsnotfree (#17)
Why do you feel entilted to the fruits of another persons labors? Is that not the very diffinition of slavery?
#20. To: mininggold (#15)
Tell me how you keep the soldiers healthy if you don't have a system that promotes general welfare? Oh that's right! They are special citizens with special rights
#21. To: mininggold (#15)
Tell me how you keep the soldiers healthy if you don't have a system that promotes general welfare?
#22. To: mininggold (#16)
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
#23. To: We The People (#20)
No, they hold a job with paid health care as part of their benefits package.
#24. To: lucysmom, mininggold (#21)
Tell me how you keep the soldiers healthy if you don't have a system that promotes general welfare?
#25. To: lucysmom (#21)
Is it possible to sustain a healthy economy with a sickly workforce?
#26. To: mininggold (#23)
No, they hold a job with paid health care as part of their benefits package.
#27. To: We The People (#24)
Is it possible that you two will stop putting forth your opinions and show me how or where health care is a right?
#28. To: We The People (#26)
Because that is the deal that your government offers.
#29. To: mininggold (#28)
It's nice to know you think certain special citizens, of which you are one, should have certain guaranteed lifetime rights.
#30. To: mininggold (#27)
I already told you it was in the Preamble.
#31. To: mininggold (#28)
#32. To: mininggold (#27)
Is it possible for you to stop whining about other posters here? I already told you it was in the Preamble.
#33. To: mininggold (#19)
Why do you feel certain citizens are deserving of rights not accorded to the rest of us?
#34. To: mininggold (#23)
Really... so why do they get it for the rest of their lives, even after they leave that employment. Which usually occurs at a fairly young age?
#35. To: mininggold (#28)
It's nice to know you think certain special citizens, of which you are one, should have certain guaranteed lifetime rights. Whether you use them or not is immaterial.
#36. To: freedomsnotfree (#34)
part of the employment package and benefits...you want those benefits...go join the military
#37. To: freedomsnotfree, We the People (#35)
(Edited)
I've never been a vet and I don't get the benefits...I understand that...why don't you?
#38. To: We The People (#30)
There are much better arguments than the preamble, that ARE listed in the Constitution, but I'm not going to present them for you.
#39. To: lucysmom, mininggold (#32)
(Edited)
It is also in Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:
#40. To: mininggold (#36)
#41. To: mininggold, lucysmom (#38)
There are much better arguments than the preamble, that ARE listed in the Constitution, but I'm not going to present them for you.
#42. To: freedomsnotfree (#40)
nice try...that's certainly NOT the case now, and hasn't been for decades.
#43. To: We The People (#39)
he powers conferred in Article 1, Section 8, are enumerated after the general opening statement, and strangely enough, no mention of welfare payments or free health care is found.
#44. To: mininggold (#42)
And they have never, ever taken the infirm.
#45. To: mininggold (#42)
It was the case for a distinct majority of citizens now alive in the US
#46. To: mininggold (#43)
#47. To: mininggold (#43)
he powers conferred in Article 1, Section 8, are enumerated after the general opening statement, and strangely enough, no mention of welfare payments or free health care is found.
#48. To: freedomsnotfree (#45)
...who are you referring to?
#49. To: mininggold (#43)
(Edited)
The framers were free to include limitations to the phrase if they so desired.
#50. To: We The People (#47)
That one man, was James Madison aka Publius, who was one of the framers of the constitution. The Federalist papers were written to explain the constitution to the people of the state of New York and explicitly explains the original intent of the framers.
#51. To: mininggold (#7)
Then why did you ask the question? But a god given right covers lots of territory especially when the constitution explicitly mentions the 'general welfare'.
#52. 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.
#53. To: mininggold (#52)
So are you saying the lack of health care is akin to murder?
#54. To: mininggold (#48)
Any one older than forty five.
#55. To: mininggold, we the people (#50)
#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.
#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.
#58. To: freedomsnotfree (#57)
ahhh...dark humor, and to the point....I like it!
#59. To: A K A Stone (#58)
You understand that everything I say isn't totally serious. Some people don't.
#60. To: mininggold (#52)
#61. To: We The People (#60)
#62. To: We The People (#56)
In my book, that's two framers to one on the original intent of the general welfare clause.
#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.
#64. To: mininggold (#62)
It still means nothing,
#65. To: mininggold (#63)
You black/white 'Divided We Fall' lovers make me laugh.
#66. To: mininggold (#62)
It still means nothing
#67. To: A K A Stone (#64)
miningblood.
#68. To: freedomsnotfree (#66)
...or course not. Communists, and those of their ilk, think limitations on government are meaningless.
#69. To: A K A Stone (#65)
It is black and white. There are no shades of gray.
#70. To: mininggold (#68)
#71. To: freedomsnotfree (#70)
no...I can see them here...when you post. Answer the question, coward.
#72. To: mininggold (#71)
#73. To: mininggold (#62)
It still means nothing
#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???
#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.
#76. To: mininggold (#74)
#77. To: freedomsnotfree (#17)
Why do you feel entilted to the fruits of another persons labors? Is that not the very diffinition of slavery?
#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.
#79. To: NewsJunky (#77)
(Edited)
#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.
#81. To: freedomsnotfree (#79)
who defines "well off".
#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.
#83. To: We The People (#82)
No, I'm afraid they do not,
#84. To: NewsJunky (#83)
Your opinion is irrelevant.
#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.
#86. To: NewsJunky (#81)
#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.
#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.
#89. To: We The People (#85)
Does .gov have unlimited power or doesn't it?
#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.
#91. To: We The People (#88)
I'd say the verdict is already in on that question.
#92. To: We The People (#85)
Does .gov have unlimited power or doesn't it?
#93. To: NewsJunky (#90)
#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."
#95. To: NewsJunky (#92)
Has the Supreme Court given the government "unlimited" powers?
#96. To: freedomsnotfree (#86)
why should the family making 300k, 400k or 75k be responsible for the needs, wants or desires of anybody
#97. To: We The People (#95)
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".
#98. To: We The People, newsjunky (#95)
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".
#99. To: NewsJunky (#96)
Because the modern civilized world has collectively decided to that government should play a role in helping poor people.
#100. To: NewsJunky (#96)
Because the modern civilized world has collectively decided to that government should play a role in helping poor people. If you don't like it you can move to Somalia. I don't think they have any government sponsored welfare programs there at all. If I am wrong and they do, i guess you are probably out of luck.
#101. To: NewsJunky, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#97)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#102. To: NewsJunky (#96)
Because the modern civilized world has collectively decided to that government should play a role in helping poor people.
#103. To: NewsJunky (#97)
I should have qualified my statement by saying that as long the SP doesn't strike it down.
#104. To: We The People (#102)
LOL!
#105. To: We The People (#103)
#106. To: freedomsnotfree (#100)
no one is "EQUAL" until everyone is equally poor...
#107. To: NewsJunky (#105)
(Edited)
Take it up with the Supreme Court. I am not a constitutional scholar..
#108. To: We The People (#6)
What Article, Section or Clause in the US Constitution gives the federal government authority to involve itself in the health care of it's citizens in the first place?
#109. To: We The People, mininggold, All (#5)
(Edited)
If you can't or wont address what I ACTUALLY said, why bother to respond?
#110. To: mcgowanjm (#109)
#111. To: mcgowanjm (#108)
#112. To: freedomsnotfree, NewsJunky (#93)
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.
#113. To: CZ82 (#112)
(Edited)
#114. To: freedomsnotfree (#113)
we are headed for so very interesting times...and the "you owe me" crowd is going to be in for a rude wake-up call.
#115. To: CZ82 (#114)
#116. To: freedomsnotfree (#115)
...believe it...I moved out of a major city years ago...I'm on 9 acres in the country, in a "town" of 4,500 folks...his kind won't be very welcome around here.
#117. To: CZ82 (#116)
#118. To: We The People (#107)
the latter now for all of 75 years.
#119. To: NewsJunky (#118)
(Edited)
You should change your name from WTP to my view of the constitution and screw what the people want.
#120. To: NewsJunky (#118)
I do have faith in the people in most instances to make the right decisions regarding the law. And trust that court will make the right decision when it comes to the constitutionality of any law.
#121. To: NewsJunky (#118)
I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't have opinions on such complex areas of law.
#122. To: freedomsnotfree, AKA Stone (#121)
oh, that's right...you don't "have" opinions...as long as you can benefit from the hard work of others. You really are a "special" kind of stupid aren't you.
#123. To: NewsJunky (#118)
the latter now for all of 75 years.
#124. To: CZ82 (#122)
#125. To: freedomsnotfree, AKA Stone (#124)
HOW DARE you want to keep what you earn!!! It's MINE, MINE all MINE!! lol
#126. To: We The People (#119)
For whatever reason, you think other peoples opinions on constitutional issues don't matter, on a political discussion forum, on a thread dealing with a constitutional issue.
#127. To: freedomsnotfree (#121)
is government limited in its power by the Constitution or does it have unlimited power.
#128. To: NewsJunky (#127)
#129. To: We The People (#123)
The general welfare clause was interpreted as it was written in the Constitution and explained in the federalist papers, for 150 years prior to 1937.
#130. To: freedomsnotfree (#128)
So what happens when the appointees are communist/globalist minded judges that think the Constitution is an outdated document and we should move toward international law... are "we the people" supposed to ignore the Constitution just because 9 people in black robes say we should.
#131. To: NewsJunky (#129)
What a glorious time for the poor and elderly that was.
#132. To: NewsJunky (#130)
You can also tell the Congress to end welfare programs
#133. To: NewsJunky, freedomsnotfree, We The People, CZ82, *Liberal Rehab Staff* (#127)
when the Supreme Court strikes down a law then the court limits the power of Congress or President
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" -President Andrew Jackson 
Samuel Worcester
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#134. To: freedomsnotfree (#131)
Take a GOOD look at Greece...
#135. To: lucysmom (#134)
Why Greece? Why not Iceland
#136. To: freedomsnotfree (#131)
POOR!!! You do realize this welfare/warfare state has put us 15 TRILLION dollars in debt...RIGHT!!! you REALIZE THIS RIGHT!!!
#137. To: freedomsnotfree (#132)
I won't have to tell Congress anything...the shows over and we're broke...the gravy train is going to crash to a halt...it's inevitable and unavoidable...thank goodness, it's way past time.
#138. To: NewsJunky (#136)
#139. To: NewsJunky (#137)
There is way to solve the problem that involves both spending cuts and tax increases that can solve the problem and they will figure it out in the end.
#140. To: NewsJunky (#126)
How valuable or definitive should I consider your opinions on the matter
#141. To: NewsJunky (#127)
is government limited in its power by the Constitution or does it have unlimited power.
#142. To: NewsJunky (#126)
A constitutional issue is not a political issue.
#143. To: We The People (#111)
Corporations are not people.
#144. To: We The People (#110)
I don't even have any apples or oranges.
#145. To: mcgowanjm (#144)
And how come there's no apple ice cream
#146. To: We The People (#145)
And how come there's no apple ice cream
#147. To: freedomsnotfree (#138)
he debt has grown exponentially for years and we are coming to the end of fractional reserve banking. It will end as it ALWAYS does
#148. To: NewsJunky (#147)
#149. To: freedomsnotfree (#148)
grown exponentially for years
#150. To: NewsJunky (#149)
#151. To: NewsJunky (#149)
Was our debt growing exponentially at the end of the 90's or not?
#152. To: freedomsnotfree (#151)
(Edited)
Was our debt growing exponentially at the end of the 90's or not?
#153. To: NewsJunky (#152)
#154. To: freedomsnotfree (#153)
(Edited)
#155. To: NewsJunky (#154)
I am don't know what you are talking about.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]