[tomder55]

This is what the CBO wrote in 1994 when Hillarycare would've done the same thing as Pelosi-care's mandatory purchase does.
“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”


The people at CNS News has been asking the people in Congress where is the Constitutional mandate for forcing people to buy health insurance.

The answers have varied from admissions they they have never read the Constitution ;to dismissals like Madame Mimi did (Are you serious? );to silly comments about setting speed limits... and vague comparisons to Congress' authority to raise an Army by using the draft.

The truth is that never before has Congress ever mandated the purchase of a service for the purpose of lawfull residency in the country .

They can claim broad authority all they want under Article 1 Sec 8 necessary and proper clause ;the abuse of the commerce clause;or even under a vaguer claim of providing for the general welfare .But that doesn't make it so.

If there is no limits to what power they can claim under that Section then their powers are unlimitted instead of few and enumerated and NOTHING would be outside Congressional authority.

[paraclete]

.

This is actually an interesting development, could Obama's healthcare plan be "the mark of the beast" and is Obama the beast?

[speechlesstx]

And that's what amazes me about a guy like ex being so intent on passing this disaster. I guess all those years of whining about Bush destroying our liberties were just for show.

By the way Ex, is this what you mean by saving money? Americans for Tax Reform listed the new taxes attached to Pelosi's Christmas present that will send us free people to jail if we refuse to buy her 'gift' (can we possibly get any more Orwellian than what the Dems are pawing on us this year?). They missed one new tax though:

House Democrats are funding their new entitlement with a 5.4% surtax on incomes above $500,000 for individuals and above $1 million for joint filers. The surcharge is intended to snag the greatest number of taxpayers to raise some $460.5 billion, and so the House has written it to apply to modified adjusted gross income. That means it includes both capital gains and dividends.

That surtax takes effect on January 1, 2011, or the day the Bush tax rates of 2001 and 2003 expire. Today's capital gains tax rate of 15% would bounce back to 20% because of the Bush repeal and then to 25.4% with the surtax. That's a 69% increase, overnight.

Tell us again how this is going to save money? That light at the end of the tunnel you see is a train.

[paraclete]

That light at the end of the tunnel you see is a train.

But what is the government to do? No Money, spending programs, where else do you get it but to tax the rich and anyone who can make a capital gain in this environment should be taxed for exploitation. The time has come for those who benefit to pay the bill, no more robbing from the poor to pay the rich, perhaps someone has truly seen the light:)

[ETWolverine]

But what is the government to do? No Money, spending programs, where else do you get it but to tax the rich and anyone who can make a capital gain in this environment should be taxed for exploitation. The time has come for those who benefit to pay the bill, no more robbing from the poor to pay the rich, perhaps someone has truly seen the light:)

Tax the rich to feed the poor, till there are no rich no more...

Brilliant.

[paraclete]

Tax the rich to feed the poor,

Brilliant.

Yes it is absolutely brilliant and look what it did for the Soviet Union. How does it go?

"sic semper tyrannus" and that includes the rich.

You can always tax the rich without killing them. The object is to fleece the sheep with the minimum of bleeting. If you guys kept sheep over there you would understand the principle

[phlanx]

I believe taxing the rich for the poor is and always has been a terrible idea, rather provide them tax breaks for employing more people

This will provide the rich with an oppurtunity to choose from while at the same time increase the number of jobs available and therefore reduce the social fund

But then this would require government intervention and we all know where Elliot lies with this

[paraclete]

I believe taxing the rich for the poor is and always has been a terrible idea, rather provide them tax breaks for employing more poeple

This will provide teh rich with an oppurtunity to choose from while at the same time increase the number of jobs available and therefore reduce the social fund

But then this would require government intervention and we all know where Elliot lies with this

What a stupid idea, the rich will always act in their own interest so you suggest subsidising employment, you may as well have the government nationalise industries and run them. Would you like to tell me why governments flee the idea of nationalised industries so popular in the UK of the past.

The burden of taxation should fall on those who derive the greatest benefit, who is this if not the rich. People are not cannon fodder for industry, so how do we tax the rich and provide more jobs, we don't give them tax breaks we impose tarriffs on cheap imports until there is no price advantage to importing and not making locally. This is called by some protectionism but it solves the problem of outsourcing to low cost countries and stops the migration of industries.

[tomder55]

The burden of taxation should fall on those who derive the greatest benefit, who is this if not the rich.

See my post about NY State . There is a wealth flight out of the state that is making the overall fiscal problems in the state much worse.
Maybe you have read 'Atlas Shrugged' .Eventually the rich and the productive people flocked to Galt's Gulch away from the Sheriff of Nottinghams who run the government .

[inthebox]

But what is the government to do? No Money, spending programs, where else do you get it but to tax the rich and anyone who can make a capital gain in this environment should be taxed for exploitation. The time has come for those who benefit to pay the bill, no more robbing from the poor to pay the rich, perhaps someone has truly seen the light:)

The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Tax

Clete, your ignorance of the American tax system is truly astounding:

The top 1 percent of income earners paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes in 2006, while the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Further, 32 percent of all tax returns with positive adjusted gross incomeTotal income (before subtracting deductions or taxes) minus deductions. 43 million total, filed in 2006 were from people who paid no federal income tax at all.

Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

Bottom 50% pay 3% of taxes, the top 50% pay 97%





G&P

[ETWolverine]

Yes it is absolutely brilliant and look what it did for the Soviet Union. How does it go?

"sic semper tyrannus" and that includes the rich.

You can always tax the rich without killing them. The object is to fleece the sheep with the minimum of bleeting. If you guys kept sheep over there you would understand the principle

Yeah... cause fleecing the sheep is a great way of creating new jobs and getting the economy back on its feet.

I have never seen a poor person who created a job. Rich people create jobs. But if you tax them MORE (aka "fleece them"), they create FEWER jobs. And since the priority for the economy should be job creation, taxing the rich more is what is known in economic circles as a Bad Idea.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

I believe taxing the rich for the poor is and always has been a terrible idea, rather provide them tax breaks for employing more poeple

This will provide teh rich with an oppurtunity to choose from while at the same time increase the number of jobs available and therefore reduce the social fund

But then this would require government intervention and we all know where Elliot lies with this

They don't need to provide tax breaks for employing more people. They just need to lower taxes across the board... in other words, they need to DECREASE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION VIA TAXATION.

Government intervention in either direction (either pro business or against business) is equally wrong.

You almost had it right...

Elliot

[phlanx]

Trade Issues Key To Obama's Asia Trip Agenda - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2009

So the government shouldn't intervene or encourage - then why is the president going to asia?

[ETWolverine]

Trade Issues Key To Obama's Asia Trip Agenda - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2009

So the government shouldnt intervene or encourage - then why is the president going to asia?

My understanding is that he's there to "shore up our alliances with foreign governments". At least that's what he's saying officially.

Unofficially? He's going there to make sure that Japan and China continue to lend us money so that he can continue to spend it on his assinine ideas about domestic wealth redistribution.

Government intervention strikes again.

Elliot

[phlanx]

So why would the president do that if government intervention is bad in your eyes?

Is it a case that your opinons not suit the modern world of market and trade?

[speechlesstx]

"More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%)."

And yet, the push continues...

[paraclete]

The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Tax

Clete, your ignorance of the American tax system is truly astounding:


Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

Bottom 50% pay 3% of taxes, the top 50% pay 97%


G&P

Maybe you haven't heard of the 80-20 rule but it holds generally true of any population but you cannot increase the taxation on the low end because those with the ability to pay don't like paying

[amdeist]

No healthcare plan that involves trial lawyers, fraud, waste, capitalist insurance companies, capitalist pharmaceutical companies, healthcare lobbyists, uncontrollable costs, etc. can ever be implemented without bankrupting America. It would be wonderful if every American could have access to primary health care, but that is not a viable alternative, if for no other reason, that there aren't enough primary health care providers to meet the needs of our population. Although many Americans, including beneficiaries of the government health care system, believe that it is a bad system, there is almost no fraud, few trial lawyers, very controllable costs, and none of the capitalism that exists in our civilian system. Implementing a system where pre-existing conditions are covered will cause insurance companies to be selective about who they insure, just as we do in the auto and home insurance industries. Until we are ready to bite the bullet and get insurance companies out of our health care system, there is nothing our leaders can do to fix our current problems, they can only put band aids on what has become a gaping chest wound.

[paraclete]

Yeah... cause fleecing the sheep is a great way of creating new jobs and getting the economy back on its feet.

I have never seen a poor person who created a job. Rich people create jobs. But if you tax them MORE (aka "fleece them"), they create FEWER jobs. And since the priority for the economy should be job creation, taxing the rich more is what is known in economic circles as a Bad Idea.

Elliot

You don't get it Elliot, tax doesn't drive the business, that's the second rule of business, the first rule is get as much as you can. So long as tax isn't 100% you are ahead. Look at the stupid ideas you have where employers pay for health care, that can't be good for business, just government abdicating their responsibility. Employers will only add to the payroll if it produces more profit and to do that you have to produce more sales which is determined by the market not the government. For heaven sake put you head in an economics text book for a change. What is needed is to remove all the barriers to employment not just lower taxes

[ETWolverine]

So why would the president do that if government intervention is bad in your eyes?

Because he's a socialist. A statist. A Marxist. He is NOT a supporter of the Constitution and never has been. He has been in favor of wealth redistribution from the start, despit the fact that the Constitution prohibits the seizure of private assets for the purpose of giving those assets to other private individuals (which is the form of wealth redistribution that he favors). That is what we on the right have been saying for close to a year now. Why are you having trouble understanding this fact?

Just because Obama is doing it doesn't make him right.

Elliot