"We Will Not Comply": Obamacare Upheld By Supreme Court

[Seeker1961]

How do you know? Let me borrow one of øbama’s responses: things would have been worse if taxes weren’t lowered.

I know because we’ve been trying it for years! I was once as you are now and I bought it-until the numbers just didn’t support what the politicians were telling me. The numbers are out there-MORE unemployment since the tax cuts-not less. I could see with my own eyes that tax cuts were NOT creating more opportunity for everyone here in the US. Since the late 1970’s, income for the top 1% has increased by triple digits, the best any other segment of our society has done is low double digits and many have stayed flat-again, the numbers are out there-and not from “liberal” sources either. They’ve been tested and proven. The economy was better when those at the top were paying more than they are now.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. If you’re part of that top 1%, I totally get why you’d want to continue this policy, but if you’re not I can’t understand why you’d vote for it.

btw-I got a post edited the other day because I mentioned the name of a specific candidate, just wanted to warn you.

 

[ACCT]

I know because we’ve been trying it for years! I was once as you are now and I bought it-until the numbers just didn’t support what the politicians were telling me. The numbers are out there-MORE unemployment since the tax cuts-not less. I could see with my own eyes that tax cuts were NOT creating more opportunity for everyone here in the US. Since the late 1970’s, income for the top 1% has increased by triple digits, the best any other segment of our society has done is low double digits and many have stayed flat-again, the numbers are out there-and not from “liberal” sources either. They’ve been tested and proven. The economy was better when those at the top were paying more than they are now.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. If you’re part of that top 1%, I totally get why you’d want to continue this policy, but if you’re not I can’t understand why you’d vote for it.

btw-I got a post edited the other day because I mentioned the name of a specific candidate, just wanted to warn you.

The United States was a 100% free market economy for 150 years. Those were the golden years of wealth accumulation by the average U.S. citizen. The U.S. followed the free market principles laid down by the economist, Adam Smith in 1776 and the founding fathers.

Even public education, which was started by Horace Mann in the mid 1800s, was truly public, unlike today. Local parents ran the public schools. There was no nationalization of the public schools by both state and federal departments of education.

All of that thinking changed with Marx and the Russian revolution in 1917. Little by little the U.S. and the world changed into a socialist state. Additionally, our morals declined, as evidenced by WW1 and WW2. Today we are in dire straits.

I look forward to a new free market economy. **You have your chance to show your moral courage against the oppressive socialist Obamacare in the November elections. Vote all of those politicians who supported Obamacare out of office! **

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The United States was a 100% free market economy for 150 years. Those were the golden years of wealth accumulation by the average U.S. citizen. The U.S. followed the free market principles laid down by the economist, Adam Smith in 1776 and the founding fathers.

Even public education, which was started by Horace Mann in the mid 1800s, was truly public, unlike today. Local parents ran the public schools. There was no nationalization of the public schools by both state and federal departments of education.

All of that thinking changed with Marx and the Russian revolution in 1917. Little by little the U.S. and the world changed into a socialist state. Additionally, our morals declined, as evidenced by WW1 and WW2. Today we are in dire straits.

I look forward to a new free market economy. **You have your chance to show your moral courage against the oppressive socialist Obamacare in the November elections. Vote all of those politicians who supported Obamacare out of office! **

A local radio host just described our nation as being a “post Constitutional nation.”



He said that all the Constitution is currently doing is providing a structure for elections, and protecting criminals. Otherwise, it is an historical document and nothing more.

He is a lawyer, and was speaking about the ACA.

I didn’t have a chance to call in and ask him if he thinks we have any chance of returning to our Constitution without a revolution. As time goes by, I doubt it more and more. Even with a revolution, we are likely to move into a fascist state instead. Dear Lord, please help us!

 

[sedonaman]

I know because we’ve been trying it for years! I was once as you are now and I bought it-until the numbers just didn’t support what the politicians were telling me. …

They never will because politicians rarely speak with precise meanings, marginal calculations, or logical reasoning; instead they manipulate effect, raw emotions, group identifications, and even hatred, envy, and threats. Because premature commitment to an issue can cause one to end up in a minority position, successful politicians equivocate, hint, exaggerate, procrastinate, ‘straddle fences,’ adopt code words, and speak in non-sequiturs.

The numbers are out there-MORE unemployment since the tax cuts-not less. …

And I’m asking more unemployment than WHAT? You can’t prove your statement because you can’t re-run the economy without the tax cuts.

I could see with my own eyes that tax cuts were NOT creating more opportunity for everyone here in the US. Since the late 1970’s, income for the top 1% has increased by triple digits, the best any other segment of our society has done is low double digits and many have stayed flat-again, the numbers are out there-and not from “liberal” sources either. They’ve been tested and proven. The economy was better when those at the top were paying more than they are now.

I don’t believe this for several reasons. First, correlation does not prove causation. Our economy is very complex, and there could have been other reasons for the “lack of opportunity,” assuming there was a lack. One might even ask where you got the idea that a tax cut was supposed to create “more opportunity for everyone”. No human endeavor is perfect.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. If you’re part of that top 1%, I totally get why you’d want to continue this policy, but if you’re not I can’t understand why you’d vote for it.

The fact is that “rich” people invest their excess income/wealth which provides the capital to grow the economy. Without capital, you don’t have capitalism. Taxing away this capital prevents investments and the creation of real jobs. I don’t see how someone could be for more jobs but at the same time want less capital, unless he is being driven by envy and the desire to “stick it to” the rich … even if he hurts himself in the process. Such a person IMHO is afflicted by the “Loser Take All” syndrome. jillneimark.com/losers.html

 

[sedonaman]

… He said that all the Constitution is currently doing is providing a structure for elections, and protecting criminals. Otherwise, it is an historical document and nothing more.

He is a lawyer, and was speaking about the ACA.

…

So that’s why you have no rights until you’ve committed a crime. LOL !

 

[Seeker1961]

They never will because politicians rarely speak with precise meanings, marginal calculations, or logical reasoning; instead they manipulate effect, raw emotions, group identifications, and even hatred, envy, and threats. Because premature commitment to an issue can cause one to end up in a minority position, successful politicians equivocate, hint, exaggerate, procrastinate, ‘straddle fences,’ adopt code words, and speak in non-sequiturs.

And I’m asking more unemployment than WHAT? You can’t prove your statement because you can’t re-run the economy without the tax cuts.

I don’t believe this for several reasons. First, correlation does not prove causation. Our economy is very complex, and there could have been other reasons for the “lack of opportunity,” assuming there was a lack. One might even ask where you got the idea that a tax cut was supposed to create “more opportunity for everyone”. No human endeavor is perfect.

The fact is that “rich” people invest their excess income/wealth which provides the capital to grow the economy. Without capital, you don’t have capitalism. Taxing away this capital prevents investments and the creation of real jobs. I don’t see how someone could be for more jobs but at the same time want less capital, unless he is being driven by envy and the desire to “stick it to” the rich … even if he hurts himself in the process. Such a person IMHO is afflicted by the “Loser Take All” syndrome. jillneimark.com/losers.html

The simple fact is, the tax rate on the “job creators” is lower now that at any point in our recent history, yet our unemployment rates remain high. Go back to any of the speeches during the discussion of the Tax cut bill during the last administration and you will hear the promise that giving these tax cuts to the top 1% would create jobs and opportunity for the rest of the nation. It has not.

I have no objection to people getting rich, I want EVERYONE to have the opportunity to do that. The fact is that since the 1970’s, opportunity for a poor person to work their way out of poverty has decreased. And yes, there are a number of reasons for that-however, it is clear from the numbers that the tax cuts for the wealthy are a part of the problem, not a solution. We’ve tried it, it hasn’t worked-time to try something else.

 

[sedonaman]

The simple fact is, the tax rate on the “job creators” is lower now that at any point in our recent history, yet our unemployment rates remain high. Go back to any of the speeches during the discussion of the Tax cut bill during the last administration and you will hear the promise that giving these tax cuts to the top 1% would create jobs and opportunity for the rest of the nation. It has not.

I have no objection to people getting rich, I want EVERYONE to have the opportunity to do that. The fact is that since the 1970’s, opportunity for a poor person to work their way out of poverty has decreased. And yes, there are a number of reasons for that-however, it is clear from the numbers that the tax cuts for the wealthy are a part of the problem, not a solution. We’ve tried it, it hasn’t worked-time to try something else.

Since more taxes mean more prosperity, I think that the government should make tax rates 100%, IOW they take it all; and then, according to your theory, we will have economic nirvana for everyone.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The simple fact is, the tax rate on the “job creators” is lower now that at any point in our recent history, yet our unemployment rates remain high. Go back to any of the speeches during the discussion of the Tax cut bill during the last administration and you will hear the promise that giving these tax cuts to the top 1% would create jobs and opportunity for the rest of the nation. It has not.

I have no objection to people getting rich, I want EVERYONE to have the opportunity to do that. The fact is that since the 1970’s, opportunity for a poor person to work their way out of poverty has decreased. And yes, there are a number of reasons for that-however, it is clear from the numbers that the tax cuts for the wealthy are a part of the problem, not a solution. We’ve tried it, it hasn’t worked-time to try something else.

God required Israel to tithe 10%, highest tax rate in the Bible

 

[_Abyssinia]

Since more taxes mean more prosperity, I think that the government should make tax rates 100%, IOW they take it all; and then, according to your theory, we will have economic nirvana for everyone.

This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It’s not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there’s a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year

my emphases

patriotpost.us/opinion/9582

The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans already account for 59 percent of federal income taxes. Nearly half of our citizens pay no federal income taxes at all–yet two-thirds of us believe that everybody should at least pay something, even if just to remind ourselves that government isn’t free. The Tax Foundation reports that the percentage of Americans who are net takers from the tax system is nearing 70 percent

aei.org/article/103846

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The simple fact is, the tax rate on the “job creators” is lower now that at any point in our recent history, yet our unemployment rates remain high. Go back to any of the speeches during the discussion of the Tax cut bill during the last administration and you will hear the promise that giving these tax cuts to the top 1% would create jobs and opportunity for the rest of the nation. It has not.

I have no objection to people getting rich, I want EVERYONE to have the opportunity to do that. The fact is that since the 1970’s, opportunity for a poor person to work their way out of poverty has decreased. And yes, there are a number of reasons for that-however, it is clear from the numbers that the tax cuts for the wealthy are a part of the problem, not a solution. We’ve tried it, it hasn’t worked-time to try something else.

“Tax cuts for the wealthy” is propaganda. This nation was built on the foundation of EVERYONE having a chance to own private property…wait for it…THROUGH YOUR OWN EFFORTS! With the PROTECTION of the Constitution against the TYRANNY of the GOVERNMENT!

All I see is envy and covetousness now. Somehow, because of the sad condition of our public schools, the Communist media, and several generations of progressives being allowed to run rampant in Congress, people have come to the conclusion that what someone else has, needs to be theirs. “It’s not fair!” should be our new national anthem!

Bunch of whiny spoiled brats, you lot are.

Even my 18 year old son gets it. But there are so many of our citizens who don’t understand the first thing about the liberty and freedom this nation was built upon. The federal government is NOT benign, it’s NOT your daddy, and it’s NOT meant to have its hands in everything we do!

You see the poor unable to work their way out of poverty? What incentive do they have to do so when entitlements are there as a hammock? Unable to work their way out of poverty? Maybe letting in millions of illegal immigrants to undercut our capitalistic system isn’t such a good idea? Unable to work their way out of poverty? Sure, because envy of others is so much easier.

Don’t cry to me about the poor. Progressives need the poor so they can hand them goodies, so they keep voting for the goodies.

 

[Seeker1961]

“Tax cuts for the wealthy” is propaganda. This nation was built on the foundation of EVERYONE having a chance to own private property…wait for it…THROUGH YOUR OWN EFFORTS! With the PROTECTION of the Constitution against the TYRANNY of the GOVERNMENT!

All I see is envy and covetousness now. Somehow, because of the sad condition of our public schools, the Communist media, and several generations of progressives being allowed to run rampant in Congress, people have come to the conclusion that what someone else has, needs to be theirs. “It’s not fair!” should be our new national anthem!

Bunch of whiny spoiled brats, you lot are.

Even my 18 year old son gets it. But there are so many of our citizens who don’t understand the first thing about the liberty and freedom this nation was built upon. The federal government is NOT benign, it’s NOT your daddy, and it’s NOT meant to have its hands in everything we do!

You see the poor unable to work their way out of poverty? What incentive do they have to do so when entitlements are there as a hammock? Unable to work their way out of poverty? Maybe letting in millions of illegal immigrants to undercut our capitalistic system isn’t such a good idea? Unable to work their way out of poverty? Sure, because envy of others is so much easier.

Don’t cry to me about the poor. Progressives need the poor so they can hand them goodies, so they keep voting for the goodies.

I say that “the poor are lazy greedy slobs waiting for handouts” is a myth perpetuated by those who already have so that they can justify their constant grasping for even more. The rich need to perpetuate this myth so that people who are continually losing ground under the current system will continue to vote their friends into office and thus continually expand their power base and wealth. The “welfare queen” was invented back in the late 70’s and even though the only evidence of such people were those CAUGHT and prosecuted for fraud, the myth remains. It keeps people voting against their own financial interests and politicians love it.

The difference is in our competing mythology is that there are hard numbers to back mine. Look up income growth since the 1970’s and see for yourself.

 

[horazy]

The letter below was signed by Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan and many other religious leaders. No where does it say that the Catholic Church is opposed to Health care, only the elimination of the HSS mandate spelled out below. If the provisions in the Health care law remain then those religious institutions opposed to abortion will be persecuted in what ever means our government deems necessary. Persecution is not new to us. We will remain true to our beliefs and face the hardships if they occur.

An Open Letter from Religious Leaders in the United States to All Americans

June 21, 2012 Dear Friends,
Religious institutions are established because of religious beliefs and convictions. Such institutions include not only churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship, but also schools and colleges, shelters and community kitchens, adoption agencies and hospitals, organizations that provide care and services during natural disasters, and countless other organizations that exist to put specific religious beliefs into practice. Many such organizations have provided services and care to both members and non-members of their religious communities since before the Revolutionary War, saving and improving the lives of countless American citizens.
As religious leaders from a variety of perspectives and communities, we are compelled to make known our protest against the incursion of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) into the realm of religious liberty. HHS has mandated that religious institutions, with only a narrow religious exception, must provide access to certain contraceptive benefits, even if the covered medications or procedures are contradictory to their beliefs. We who oppose the application of this mandate to religious institutions include not only the leaders of religious groups morally opposed to contraception, but also leaders of other religious groups that do not share that particular moral conviction.
That we share an opposition to the mandate to religious institutions while disagreeing about specific moral teachings is a crucial fact. Religious freedom is the principle on which we stand. Because of differing understandings of moral and religious authority, people of good will can and often do come to different conclusions about moral questions. Yet, even we who hold differing convictions on specific moral issues are united in the conviction that no religious institution should be penalized for refusing to go against its beliefs. The issue is the First Amendment, not specific moral teachings or specific products or services.
The HHS mandate implicitly acknowledged that an incursion into religion is involved in the mandate. However, the narrowness of the proposed exemption is revealing for it applies only to religious organizations that serve or support their own members. In so doing, the government is establishing favored and disfavored religious organizations: a privatized religious organization that serves only itself is exempted from regulation, while one that believes it should also serve the public beyond its membership is denied a religious exemption. The so-called accommodation and the subsequent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) do little or nothing to alleviate the problem.
No government should tell religious organizations either what to believe or how to put their beliefs into practice. We indeed hold this to be an unalienable, constitutional right. If freedom of religion is a constitutional value to be protected, then institutions developed by religious groups to implement their core beliefs in education, in care for the sick or suffering, and in other tasks must also be protected. Only by doing so can the free exercise of religion have any meaning. The HHS mandate prevents this free exercise. For the well-being of our country, we oppose the application of the contraceptive mandate to religious institutions and plead for its retraction.
Sincerely yours,

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I say that “the poor are lazy greedy slobs waiting for handouts” is a myth perpetuated by those who already have so that they can justify their constant grasping for even more. The rich need to perpetuate this myth so that people who are continually losing ground under the current system will continue to vote their friends into office and thus continually expand their power base and wealth. The “welfare queen” was invented back in the late 70’s and even though the only evidence of such people were those CAUGHT and prosecuted for fraud, the myth remains. It keeps people voting against their own financial interests and politicians love it.

The difference is in our competing mythology is that there are hard numbers to back mine. Look up income growth since the 1970’s and see for yourself.

Those are your words, not mine. The poor are actually smart, because they are taking advantage of what the government is offering them. Unfortunately there is a high cost to that entitlement bucket. “The rich,” there you go again. Who determines what constitutes, “rich?” What if it’s $35,000? Then anyone above that level is open for demonizing?

Did you know that LBJ enacted his “Great Society” in order to keep black Americans voting Democrat? He is quoted as saying, “I’ll have those n-words voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” Doesn’t sound like he wanted to help them out of poverty does it? The odd thing is that when his programs were enacted, black American families were strong, and thriving. Even before the Civil Rights Act, black families were very strong and moral, with a foundation of faith. Welfare programs destroyed black American families. Just look at results, not supposed intentions.

 

[sedonaman]

… Who determines what constitutes, “rich?” …

Liberals do, for they have captured the language. If you listen to their rhetoric, you would conclude that all conservatives are rich, while there are no rich liberals, for if there were and they were to be consistent, they would voluntarily give at least their excess wealth to the U.S. treasury. To be 100% consistent, a true liberal would give ***all ***his wealth to the government and go on welfare.

---

“To fund liberal programs, confiscate liberal wealth.”

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Liberals do, for they have captured the language. If you listen to their rhetoric, you would conclude that all conservatives are rich, while there are no rich liberals, for if there were and they were to be consistent, they would voluntarily give at least their excess wealth to the U.S. treasury. To be 100% consistent, a true liberal would give ***all ***his wealth to the government and go on welfare.

---

“To fund liberal programs, confiscate liberal wealth.”

And yet…liberals like Michael Moore and Al Gore live WAY above their means and the means of the people liberals SO want to help…I don’t see them giving anything away.

 

[sedonaman]

…I don’t see them giving anything away.

Sure they do: other peoples’ money.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Sure they do: other peoples’ money.

Oh, I walked right into that one! LOL (rim shot)

You know what I meant - they don’t give any of THEIR OWN MONEY/STUFF away.

 

[Seeker1961]

After reading the last few posts all I can say is: “only a Sith deals in absolutes!”

 

[sedonaman]

After reading the last few posts all I can say is: “only a Sith deals in absolutes!”

Sounds like an absolute statement to me.

 

[sedonaman]

After reading the last few posts all I can say is: “only a Sith deals in absolutes!”

Are you going to respond to my post:

Since more taxes mean more prosperity, …etc.

?

---

“Class-warfare politics is bad enough when it is for real. But it is as phony as a three-dollar bill, when the same politicians pass high tax rates on ‘the rich’ to win votes – and then get financial support from ‘the rich’ to create loopholes that enable them to avoid paying those high tax rates.” – Thomas Sowell