Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PaulinVA said:
No, the difference is coercion.

Can you coerce believers (an non believers) into doing the right thing? Can you confiscate their money to do good?
Click to expand...
Nobody coerced the early Christians, unless you consider the love of God coercion. I find it interesting the amount of energy people spend arguing against being ‘forced’ to do what they should be falling over themselves to do anyway…Kind of like teens who’s rather fight over the chore list than just get up there and clean their rooms.
 
Jeffrey said:
They are forcing me to pay for abortions… that’s not right. That’s standing up for my religion… so its not bearing false witness.
Click to expand...
It is bearing false witness to call taxation theft. That has nothing to do with the wrongness of abortion, but nice try though.
 
scipio337 said:
I have a minor in classical literature, and for the life of me can’t find any reference to a progressive income tax, or universal healtcare system in the late Republic/early Empire period.

“Taxes” were assessed on actual owned wealth: real property, livestock, slaves, etc.

During Caesar’s time, this tax was about 1-3%.

The question isn’t if taxation isn’t a legal function of government, but at what point does it become criminal? Charging interest rates are a legal function of lenders, but at some point, it moves into the realm of usury.
Click to expand...
I already covered that in my post. An individual or individuals may vote against candidates who in their opinion support or impose excessive taxation.

Simply labelling taxation as theft is quite a different matter. So unless your classical literature defines stealing by the amount that is taken, then I don’t really see your point.
 
seekerz said:
Nobody coerced the early Christians, unless you consider the love of God coercion. I find it interesting the amount of energy people spend arguing against being ‘forced’ to do what they should be falling over themselves to do anyway…Kind of like teens who’s rather fight over the chore list than just get up there and clean their rooms.
Click to expand...
Its easy to be compassionate when your using other peoples money.
 
seekerz said:
I already covered that in my post. An individual or individuals may vote against candidates who in their opinion support or impose excessive taxation.

Simply labelling taxation as theft is quite a different matter. So unless your classical literature defines stealing by the amount that is taken, then I don’t really see your point.
Click to expand...
I didn’t see any of that in your post.

Where is the progressive income tax and universal healthcare “which even HE participated in”???

Perhaps “abusive taxation” would be more suitable than “theft” to your delicate sensibilities in the heirarchy of wrongs?
 
seekerz said:
Nobody coerced the early Christians, unless you consider the love of God coercion. I find it interesting the amount of energy people spend arguing against being ‘forced’ to do what they should be falling over themselves to do anyway…Kind of like teens who’s rather fight over the chore list than just get up there and clean their rooms.
Click to expand...
But, that was my question. If I want to give all of my charitable money to catholic charities and pro-life houses for unwed mothers, what right do you have to impose taxes on me to do the exact same thing through a government bureaucracy?
 
seekerz said:
Nobody coerced the early Christians, unless you consider the love of God coercion. I find it interesting the amount of energy people spend arguing against being ‘forced’ to do what they should be falling over themselves to do anyway…Kind of like teens who’s rather fight over the chore list than just get up there and clean their rooms.
Click to expand...
What was the tax rate of early Christians? Did they have a 35% Roman income tax, tax for the Province of IVDÆA, Behtlehem (or Damascus) sales (some had a 1% sales tax, centesima rerum venalium) and property tax, and tithe 10% and give to charity at the same time?

I do fall over myself to give, usually in my most precious commodity, time, but that doesn’t mean that others should be coerced.

PaulinVA had it right, “Can you confiscate their money to do good?”
 
scipio337 said:
What was the tax rate of early Christians? Did they have a 35% Roman income tax, tax for the Province of IVDÆA, Behtlehem (or Damascus) sales (some had a 1% sales tax, centesima rerum venalium) and property tax, and tithe 10% and give to charity at the same time?

I do fall over myself to give, usually in my most precious commodity, time, but that doesn’t mean that others should be coerced.

PaulinVA had it right, “Can you confiscate their money to do good?”
Click to expand...
I don’t know what their rates were. I do know that they paid tithes and taxes. So the idea that taxation itself is theft seems to have no scriptural basis that I can find.

The argument over how much is too much would be an endless one. Almost every politician I’ve heard from on the issue, agrees that the tax code needs overhauling. That they can’t seem to get together to actually DO something about it, speaks as much about them as about the supporters of theirs who see compromise as a dirty word. In many respects, we have only ourselves to blame.
 
I like what you posted in the Bobby Jindal thread:
40.png
seekerz:
…On the other hand, if we give because we love God and realize that when we have Him all else counts as nought, if we give willingly regardless of whether or not we are forced to give (reference Jesus’ words on giving your cloak as well), if we give because we realize that ultimately everything comes from God and that with every act of giving we are simply returning what’s His to Him…then we truly understand the difference between Jesus and Marx.

It’s not simply or even primarily for the sake of the poor person that we are commanded to give (that’s the purely humanitarian view), it is for love of God and the salvation of our souls. And yes, even the poor are called to give.
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9480298&postcount=137

(except I don’t under the “the difference between Jesus and Marx” point)

Many just believe it is the unjust taxation rates at every level of government that keep us from giving more, and to better and more effecient souces to help those in need.
 
maximus said:
Is there a good source that explains most of the ramifications of what this healthcare does and how it will impact the lives of individuals.

Regards,
Click to expand...
This chart is a valid depiction of the structure of the bureaucracy that is being created by Obamacare.

ACA chart

If after looking at this, you aren’t :eek: then you deserve everything the federal government will do to you. Unfortunately many of the rest of us DON’T want it and don’t deserve it, but we’re gonna suffer right along with you.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
This chart is a valid depiction of the structure of the bureaucracy that is being created by Obamacare.

ACA chart

If after looking at this, you aren’t :eek: then you deserve everything the federal government will do to you. Unfortunately many of the rest of us DON’T want it and don’t deserve it, but we’re gonna suffer right along with you.
Click to expand...
What does it look like now, before Obamacare? Care to give us a comparison chart, seeing as how you were nice enough to provide us with this one?
 
PaulinVA said:
But, that was my question. If I want to give all of my charitable money to catholic charities and pro-life houses for unwed mothers, what right do you have to impose taxes on me to do the exact same thing through a government bureaucracy?
Click to expand...
This is a point few progressives seem to consider.

What if, after this whole huge structure is in place, a conservative, pro-life Health and Human Services Secretary is appointed, who forces people to pay money to support crisis pregnancy centers and to fund anti-abortion protesters, including the ones who chase women with graphic signs? How would these pro-choicers feel to know their money was going to a cause they vehemently disagreed with?

It could very easily happen. And I would oppose that just as strongly as I now oppose the implementation of this awful law in the first place.
 
PaulinVA said:
🍿

This is gonna be good…
Click to expand...
You can finish your popcorn. Just because Estesbob posted that the theology of Catholics who are Democrats appears to him to be “that one can fulfill their obligation to care for the poor and needy by voting for someone who promises to take someone else’s money and do it for them”, certainly doesn’t mean that’s the case. The Catholics I know who are Democrats certainly don’t believe that fulfills their obligation to the poor and needy. :rolleyes:
 
_Abyssinia said:
John Roberts was originally with the four dissenters to overturn the entire law. Then he changed, if he thought it was a tax along, why did he not originally vote with the liberal Justices?
Click to expand...
Bok-bok-bok.

He couldn’t face being the one to shoot down this law that the first black President wanted passed.

Bok-bok-bok.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Bok-bok-bok.

He couldn’t face being the one to shoot down this law that the first black President wanted passed.

Bok-bok-bok.
Click to expand...
Really? How would you have reacted if the mandate had been struck down and I had posted the opposite of the above? Two words: Race Card.

Surely we can have a different level of conversation, no?
 
I have missed some posts, so if this is redundant, please forgive me.

I think a big part of why people hate Obamacare is that the whole thing was so deceptive. The legislators who passed it did so in ignorance of what it contained. Certainly, the general public didn’t know. Who in the world imagined that it would be a “club” with which to beat the Catholic institutions into supporting contraceptives, abortifacients, sterilizations and in vitro fertilization, and that the executive has the power to do almost anything with it?

So, for a lot of people, we’re just learning some of the taxes that are imposed with it. Worse than that, there are interactions that cannot be figured out. What, for example, really happens if a state doesn’t formulate an exchange? Well, the feds will formulate one for that state. But if the feds do that, does the employer who does not provide health insurance still have to pay the fine if the employer has an employee who goes to the fed exchange? Nobody seems to know.

But truly the worst part of it is the power it gives to the executive to rule health care in America by decree. Obamacare is full of “The secretary shall determine”, “The secretary shall determine”. That means “As Obama will determine.” He has the power to impose abortion coverage on Catholic institutions and employers, and no doubt about that. He just hasn’t done it yet. If he can mandate zero deductibles for abortifacients, he can mandate zero deductibles on anything. And we who are paying will have to pay for that.

And this business about how you can only be fined for not having coverage; that you can’t be put in jail for it. Is that even true? If the feds grab off your fine from what you have paid in in taxes (which they can do) leaving you short on your withholding or quarterly payments and you don’t pay in full, they most assuredly can jail you.

It’s like one huge bag of tricks.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Bok-bok-bok.

He couldn’t face being the one to shoot down this law that the first black President wanted passed.

Bok-bok-bok.
Click to expand...
I think John Roberts’ changing opinion is strange, but it has been done, it can not be taken back now. Elect Romney, ObamaTax repealed. That is where energy has to be focused on
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top