Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey_Finn said:
No bother.😃

Curious that you would pick Greece as your example of the europeans. Not Germany, England, France, or others. Perhaps Greece is not a very good example. Remember, they have existed as a country in their present form since 1974. Before that, turmoil, and oppression was their heritage. Not a very good start for the 21st century. :rolleyes:

But, greece it is. As I look at your chart, and I compare it with what I know of the country. I see tremendous spikes along about the time the IMF, and Eurozone gave very large short, and medium range LOANS to Greece. While they have struggled to fit into the EUs model. They had made some headway, before the 2008 recession. Now, they are faced with either selling of their public domains, to private European interests. or, loosing even more. Again, not a very good start fot the 21st century.

The other word for austerity, is privitazation.
Click to expand...
Why did Greece have to take the “LOANS” from the IMF, in the first place?

Because the public sector is 40% of the country’s GDP.

theodora.com/wfbcurrent/greece/greece_economy.html

Privatization isn’t a four-letter word, especially in this case!
 
Mickey_Finn said:
No bother.😃

Curious that you would pick Greece as your example of the europeans. Not Germany, England, France, or others. Perhaps Greece is not a very good example. Remember, they have existed as a country in their present form since 1974. Before that, turmoil, and oppression was their heritage. Not a very good start for the 21st century. :rolleyes:

But, greece it is. As I look at your chart, and I compare it with what I know of the country. I see tremendous spikes along about the time the IMF, and Eurozone gave very large short, and medium range LOANS to Greece. While they have struggled to fit into the EUs model. They had made some headway, before the 2008 recession. Now, they are faced with either selling of their public domains, to private European interests. or, loosing even more. Again, not a very good start fot the 21st century.

The other word for austerity, is privitazation.
Click to expand...
Fine you want EuroZone here it is.





Once again in case you forget you blamed Europe’s woes on
Mickey_Finn said:
Well, I think your smart enough to know it wasn’t THEIR spending habits.

More like ours guys.
1.Gram. Leach, Bliley act. (citigroup)
2. Alan Greenspan, (federal fund rates as low as 1%)
3. Under regulated financial institutions engaging in risky,financial deals. (derivitives- Mortgage backed securities)
4. Cowardly wage slaves (who borrowed, to buy more than they could hope to afford.)

It’s our fault.
Click to expand...


As you can see the recession in the US began in 2007 with the crash happening in 2008. The massive spike in spending seemed to occurred two years after the crash so, once again facts prove you wrong…but I’m sure the facts are wrong according to you. 😉

Still I find it laughable that you seem to know so much more about the responsibility of Europe’s economic woes more than the European politicians themselves…perhaps you should be the EU President instead. :rolleyes:
 
stevegravy said:
It is not his job to pontificate to the nation on the importance of elections. His job is to rule on legitimacy of law. As written, the language of the law by his own reasoning is illicit. Therefore, he invents an interpretation of the words not found in standard dictionary and proclaims legitimacy.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not correct. The language of the law is illicit under the commerce clause, but it is licit uncer the power to tax. The power to tax was not invented by Roberts, but rather by the founding fathers when they drafted the Constitution.

He is correct that elections have consequences, which is something that ~2% of the population realized until this decision came down. Everyone I talked to during the 2008 election was so “excited to participate” and vote for Obama because he wasn’t Bush and because McCain didn’t have the best body language (because war injuries are something to be ashamed of :rolleyes:), and any discussion about looking at the personal and professional history of both candidates was laughed at as “silly” and “crazy” because “Well, Obama SAYS this.” (Run-on sentence intentional to convey mindless youthful enthusiasm.)

Hopefully people will pay more attention to who they elect now.
 
AthenaC said:
No, that’s not correct. The language of the law is illicit under the commerce clause, but it is licit uncer the power to tax. The power to tax was not invented by Roberts, but rather by the founding fathers when they drafted the Constitution.

He is correct that elections have consequences, which is something that ~2% of the population realized until this decision came down. Everyone I talked to during the 2008 election was so “excited to participate” and vote for Obama because he wasn’t Bush and because McCain didn’t have the best body language (because war injuries are something to be ashamed of :rolleyes:), and any discussion about looking at the personal and professional history of both candidates was laughed at as “silly” and “crazy” because “Well, Obama SAYS this.” (Run-on sentence intentional to convey mindless youthful enthusiasm.)

Hopefully people will pay more attention to who they elect now.
Click to expand...
Athena I agree to some extent but please look at the WSJ’s evisceration of Roberts’ ruling. Had he decided that Obamacare’s mandate WOULD survive IF it were a tax then he should have returned it to Congress and said that it would stand only as a tax. In effect he DID Congress’s job although in the same breath he told the American people that it WASNT SCOTUS’s job to protect us from bad legislation.

Agree with you 200% on the incredibly air headed voting in 08. All you had to do was listen to the guy particularly when of prompter and it was clear he was a committed Leftist with a hidebound ideology that was masked by a lot of happy talk. I am not optimistic though about the majority of the American people getting beyond their Fantasy Football and American Idol picks to pay attention. It’s not just Nero who fiddles while Rome burns.

LIsa
 
LisaA said:
Athena I agree to some extent but please look at the WSJ’s evisceration of Roberts’ ruling. Had he decided that Obamacare’s mandate WOULD survive IF it were a tax then he should have returned it to Congress and said that it would stand only as a tax. In effect he DID Congress’s job although in the same breath he told the American people that it WASNT SCOTUS’s job to protect us from bad legislation.
Click to expand...
I would love to … if I could find it. I didn’t see anything on WSJ’s opinion page, and I don’t see anything on this thread within the last 5 pages or the initial 3 pages. Did someone link it? Any idea (ballpark) what page / page range I should look?
 
austenbosten said:
Fine you want EuroZone here it is.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=emudebt2gdp&d1=20000101&d2=20120731

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=wdebeuro&d1=20000101&d2=20120711

Once again in case you forget you blamed Europe’s woes on

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=indu&d1=20070101&d2=20100331

As you can see the recession in the US began in 2007 with the crash happening in 2008. The massive spike in spending seemed to occurred two years after the crash so, once again facts prove you wrong…but I’m sure the facts are wrong according to you. 😉

Still I find it laughable that you seem to know so much more about the responsibility of Europe’s economic woes more than the European politicians themselves…perhaps you should be the EU President instead. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sept. of '08 was the crash.

The spending, as you know. Was an effort to keep the worlds financial system from dragging ALL of us into the Abyss. That people are trying to turn this disaster to their own advantage. Rather than taking prudent steps to see it doen’t repeat. Is telling to say the least.

Privatazation is taking from the people, and giving to a corporation. How much worse, could an arrangement be?🤷
 
AthenaC said:
No, that’s not correct. The language of the law is illicit under the commerce clause, but it is licit uncer the power to tax. The power to tax was not invented by Roberts, but rather by the founding fathers when they drafted the Constitution.

He is correct that elections have consequences, which is something that ~2% of the population realized until this decision came down. Everyone I talked to during the 2008 election was so “excited to participate” and vote for Obama because he wasn’t Bush and because McCain didn’t have the best body language (because war injuries are something to be ashamed of :rolleyes:), and any discussion about looking at the personal and professional history of both candidates was laughed at as “silly” and “crazy” because “Well, Obama SAYS this.” (Run-on sentence intentional to convey mindless youthful enthusiasm.)

Hopefully people will pay more attention to who they elect now.
Click to expand...
Read the attached article.

takimag.com/article/a_vast_ne…#axzz20E5cFlcM

Napolitana understands, from the article:

I wonder whether the chief justice realizes what he and the progressive wing of the court have done to our freedom. If the feds can tax us for not doing as they have commanded, and if that which is commanded need not be grounded in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional limit to their power, and the ruling that the power to regulate commerce does not encompass the power to compel commerce is mere sophistry.
 
AthenaC said:
I would love to … if I could find it. I didn’t see anything on WSJ’s opinion page, and I don’t see anything on this thread within the last 5 pages or the initial 3 pages. Did someone link it? Any idea (ballpark) what page / page range I should look?
Click to expand...
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577496603068605864.html?KEYWORDS=Chief+Justice+Roberts

Hope this works. Sometimes the links will take you to the home page and you can’t get further. Let me know!

Lisa
 
AthenaC said:
I would love to … if I could find it. I didn’t see anything on WSJ’s opinion page, and I don’t see anything on this thread within the last 5 pages or the initial 3 pages. Did someone link it? Any idea (ballpark) what page / page range I should look?
Click to expand...
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577496603068605864.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop :rolleyes:

The commentary on John Roberts’s solo walk into the Affordable Care Act wilderness is converging on a common theme: The Chief Justice is a genius. All of a sudden he is a chessmaster, a statesman, a Burkean minimalist, a battle-loser but war-winner, a Daniel Webster for our times.
 
stevegravy said:
Read the attached article.

takimag.com/article/a_vast_ne…#axzz20E5cFlcM

Napolitana understands, from the article:

I wonder whether the chief justice realizes what he and the progressive wing of the court have done to our freedom. If the feds can tax us for not doing as they have commanded, and if that which is commanded need not be grounded in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional limit to their power, and the ruling that the power to regulate commerce does not encompass the power to compel commerce is mere sophistry.
Click to expand...
LisaA said:
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577496603068605864.html?KEYWORDS=Chief+Justice+Roberts

Hope this works. Sometimes the links will take you to the home page and you can’t get further. Let me know!

Lisa
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Yes, the link worked, Lisa. Thank you. I’m going to get some work done and will draft a reply later on if I have any further brilliant insights.
 
Better than giving to the government. Privitation leads to alot more jobs.
Mickey_Finn said:
Sept. of '08 was the crash.

The spending, as you know. Was an effort to keep the worlds financial system from dragging ALL of us into the Abyss. That people are trying to turn this disaster to their own advantage. Rather than taking prudent steps to see it doen’t repeat. Is telling to say the least.

Privatazation is taking from the people, and giving to a corporation. How much worse, could an arrangement be?🤷
Click to expand...
 
Mickey_Finn said:
Sept. of '08 was the crash.

The spending, as you know. Was an effort to keep the worlds financial system from dragging ALL of us into the Abyss. That people are trying to turn this disaster to their own advantage. Rather than taking prudent steps to see it doen’t repeat. Is telling to say the least.

Privatazation is taking from the people, and giving to a corporation. How much worse, could an arrangement be?🤷
Click to expand...
You have this completely bass-ackwards. Corporations do not take from people, it is an exchange between a willing buyer and seller at an agreed upon price (to the extent the government hasn’t interfered with the market). The government takes from people with the force of a gun and then bestows upon its beneficiaries. In the case of the financial collapse indeed it was to some corporations but that doesn’t mean these decisions were advisable.

I do not know enough about TARP to weigh in although I have some friends in the upper echelons of major banks who say it was necessary. Be that as it may, to a great extent this program resulted in repayments. Not the case with GM or the various green energy debacles. This is the worst of all worlds, crony capitalism. I love the way Obama says he “saved” GM. Well if you run a printing press, print money and prop up a company it will continue until life support is withdrawn. Hardly a bragging point but who cares about the truth when running for another term?

The government runs precious few things well and the more control they exert, the more poorly our economic engines function. Dodd Frank was a complete disaster and I hope as soon as we rid ourselves of Obamatax we set sights on pulling down that morass of stifling regulations.

Lisa
 
Jeffrey said:
Better than giving to the government. Privitation leads to alot more jobs.
Click to expand...
Generally the opposite is true. But, you must already be aware of that. Had you said privitization led to more wealth for, well we both know who for. Don’t we.

ATB
 
LisaA said:
You have this completely bass-ackwards. Corporations do not take from people, it is an exchange between a willing buyer and seller at an agreed upon price (to the extent the government hasn’t interfered with the market). The government takes from people with the force of a gun and then bestows upon its beneficiaries. In the case of the financial collapse indeed it was to some corporations but that doesn’t mean these decisions were advisable.

I do not know enough about TARP to weigh in although I have some friends in the upper echelons of major banks who say it was necessary. Be that as it may, to a great extent this program resulted in repayments. Not the case with GM or the various green energy debacles. This is the worst of all worlds, crony capitalism. I love the way Obama says he “saved” GM. Well if you run a printing press, print money and prop up a company it will continue until life support is withdrawn. Hardly a bragging point but who cares about the truth when running for another term?

The government runs precious few things well and the more control they exert, the more poorly our economic engines function. Dodd Frank was a complete disaster and I hope as soon as we rid ourselves of Obamatax we set sights on pulling down that morass of stifling regulations.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Again with the sweet talk.:rolleyes:

"Corporations don’t take from people? Kelo v New London??

articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-03/news/0601030244_1_eminent-domain-adult-bookstore-projects There are more examples every day.

I think you may have a few facts confused.😉
 
Mickey_Finn said:
Again with the sweet talk.:rolleyes:

"Corporations don’t take from people? Kelo v New London??

articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-03/news/0601030244_1_eminent-domain-adult-bookstore-projects There are more examples every day.

I think you may have a few facts confused.😉
Click to expand...
City of New London
Click to expand...
Hmmm, it looks like the corporation wasn’t the one actually taking things. Emminent doman laws fall into the public sector, hence, why the CITY, and not the CORPORATION were named in the suit.
 
Uh
Republicans strongly supported repealing the Obamacare bill, voting 239 to 0 to do so, while Democrats strongly opposed repealing the pro-abortion bill, voting 184-5 against repeal.
Click to expand...
_Abyssinia said:
Leader Cantor: ObamaCare Violates the President’s Central Promise to the American People

youtube.com/watch?v=kF-S28T4Xig

House Votes to Repeal Pro-Abortion, Pro-Rationing Obamacare

lifenews.com/2012/07/11/house-votes-to-repeal-pro-abortion-pro-rationing-obamacare

No Republicans voted no, 5 Democrats voted yes to repeal - Boren, Ross (AR), McIntyre, Matheson and Kissell. Boren and Ross are retiring
Click to expand...
 
Mickey_Finn said:
Again with the sweet talk.:rolleyes:

"Corporations don’t take from people? Kelo v New London??

articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-03/news/0601030244_1_eminent-domain-adult-bookstore-projects There are more examples every day.

I think you may have a few facts confused.😉
Click to expand...
Sorry it wasn’t the corporations TAKING, it was the GOVERNMENT declaring that a private corporation could use eminent domain. Had the government not allowed this it would not have happened.

Aside from that Kelo is one of the worst of SCOTUS’s history. Did you know the developer went bankrupt, left town and Mrs Kelo’s house still stands?

Again you mistake the role of GOVERNMENT in forcing people to give up their property. Cannot be done directly by a private company

LIsa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top