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

[seekerz]

Unfortunately, too many people are so narcissistic that they can’t see past their own nose.

Words of purely distilled and widely applicable wisdom…

 

[HelenRose]

But the US Supreme Court ruled today that if you do not buy health insurance, the government, under this President’s health care law, CAN TAX YOU.

Slavery was upheld by the supreme court for some time. There were those who defied that law. There were those who broke that law and paid the price.

I am of the belief that abortion is slavery. Slavery is the power of one human being to own, to keep or to destroy another human being.

Abortion assumes that a human being is property to be used or disposed of at will.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Slavery was upheld by the supreme court for some time. There were those who defied that law. There were those who broke that law and paid the price.

I am of the belief that abortion is slavery. Slavery is the power of one human being to own, to keep or to destroy another human being.

Abortion assumes that a human being is property to be used or disposed of at will.

An interesting legal approach that I don’t believe anyone has yet tried…Might work!

 

[Dale_M]

Slavery was upheld by the supreme court for some time. There were those who defied that law. There were those who broke that law and paid the price.

There are a few pro-life activists who have been willing to go to jail for their beliefs. Linda Gibbons might be best known, having spent 9 of the past 18 years behind bars for her beliefs.
life.nationalpost.com/2011/12/14/anti-abortion-activist-linda-gibbons-gets-her-day-in-canadas-top-court/

An American example would be Walter Hoye, a Berkeley pastor who was convicted of violating Oakland’s bubble zone. He was given the choice of a 30 day jail sentence, or serving some time in a work program… but the latter option required that he agree to stay at least 100 yards away from the Oakland abortion clinic.

He took the jail sentence.
sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Pastor-jailed-for-Oakland-anti-abortion-acts-3247604.php

(Hoye was released after 18 days in jail)

 

[Seeker1961]

That’s only half the story.

First, spending is not an “investment”; it is consumption.

Second, you have to have a real investment that produces those goods and services. Who knew he wanted a VCR until they appeared on the market? There was no demand. All the money in the world in the pockets of consumers was not going to put a single VCR in the stores until someone provided capital to manufacture them. But you would have the government tax away the capital that provides that investment.

Third, how does taxing away the capital put money in consumers’ hands?

Why would I invest money in developing new products if the number of people with purchasing power continues to shrink? I’m getting richer anyway with the tax cuts, why invest in building factories and hiring people when I can just keep that extra capital the government is giving me all for myself?

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.”

Saying that is like saying conservatives who don’t believe in government assistance should give all of their income to charities. After all, giving to charity is already popular because of the tax deductions, why not give more away so that the government assistance isn’t needed?

There is extreme thinking on both sides of this argument and it doesn’t help anything. What is needed is a return to some kind of balance where people on all levels of the economic ladder are seeing growth. Why would a rich person invest in new factories and hire people when there is a limited market for goods and services? Why would a poor person believe that they can work their way out of poverty when there are limited jobs and opportunity all around them?

 

[sedonaman]

Why would I invest money in developing new products if the number of people with purchasing power continues to shrink? I’m getting richer anyway with the tax cuts, why invest in building factories and hiring people when I can just keep that extra capital the government is giving me all for myself?
…

The government can’t give you anything it hasn’t already taken from you. You are saying the same thing as the civil servant who claimed to be paying his own salary because he paid taxes.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Why would I invest money in developing new products if the number of people with purchasing power continues to shrink? I’m getting richer anyway with the tax cuts, why invest in building factories and hiring people when I can just keep that extra capital the government is giving me all for myself?

Saying that is like saying conservatives who don’t believe in government assistance should give all of their income to charities. After all, giving to charity is already popular because of the tax deductions, why not give more away so that the government assistance isn’t needed?

There is extreme thinking on both sides of this argument and it doesn’t help anything. What is needed is a return to some kind of balance where people on all levels of the economic ladder are seeing growth. Why would a rich person invest in new factories and hire people when there is a limited market for goods and services? Why would a poor person believe that they can work their way out of poverty when there are limited jobs and opportunity all around them?

No one gets richer from tax cuts. It is money that you have already earned, that the government merely refrains from taking away. You get money from producing goods or services that are valued by society. I don’t understand your reference to a “limited market for goods and services.” Where did that concept come from? People who are innovators believe they have something that will be desired by other human beings, such that they will spend money to possess it. Bill Gates didn’t worry about a limited market. Of course a depressed economy has an effect, but people who produce do not just sit back and stop producing at those times. No, they tend to work even harder. (Although at some tipping point, you will have taxed the producers to the point where even working harder won’t bring any reward, and we in the US are nearly at that point.)

And by the way, wealth is not a zero-sum game. If you get rich, it doesn’t alter my ability to also get rich, if I can manage to work hard and bring value to other people. There is not a big pot of money somewhere that we are subtracting from with no chance of filling it again. So this class envy that is being posited is a fiction. It’s too bad that people can’t even see it as the communist philosophy that it is.

 

[sedonaman]

No one gets richer from tax cuts. It is money that you have already earned, that the government merely refrains from taking away. You get money from producing goods or services that are valued by society. I don’t understand your reference to a “limited market for goods and services.” Where did that concept come from? People who are innovators believe they have something that will be desired by other human beings, such that they will spend money to possess it. Bill Gates didn’t worry about a limited market. Of course a depressed economy has an effect, but people who produce do not just sit back and stop producing at those times. No, they tend to work even harder. (Although at some tipping point, you will have taxed the producers to the point where even working harder won’t bring any reward, and we in the US are nearly at that point.)

And by the way, wealth is not a zero-sum game. If you get rich, it doesn’t alter my ability to also get rich, if I can manage to work hard and bring value to other people. There is not a big pot of money somewhere that we are subtracting from with no chance of filling it again. So this class envy that is being posited is a fiction. It’s too bad that people can’t even see it as the communist philosophy that it is.

“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

If entrepreneurs waited until there was a market for their products, as “1961” claims, there would be no light bulbs, no automobiles for the average consumer, no VCRs, no gadgets by Ronald Popeil, no desktop computers, nor an endless list of consumer products. This is not to mention the millions and millions of jobs created by those products. :nope:

 

[Seeker1961]

“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

If entrepreneurs waited until there was a market for their products, as “1961” claims, there would be no light bulbs, no automobiles for the average consumer, no VCRs, no gadgets by Ronald Popeil, no desktop computers, nor an endless list of consumer products. This is not to mention the millions and millions of jobs created by those products. :nope:

Once again people are reading things into my post that aren’t there. It is not “class warfare” to want MORE people to have the opportunity to do well in society. There is no point in my post where I ever advocated taking money from anyone and giving it to anyone else.

I simply pointed out that in a consumer based economy, the more people that have the ability to consume the better the economy does.

If there is no zero sum game, then why is it automatically assumed that anyone supporting more opportunity for working and middle class people wants to take something away from rich people?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Once again people are reading things into my post that aren’t there. It is not “class warfare” to want MORE people to have the opportunity to do well in society. There is no point in my post where I ever advocated taking money from anyone and giving it to anyone else.

I simply pointed out that in a consumer based economy, the more people that have the ability to consume the better the economy does.

If there is no zero sum game, then why is it automatically assumed that anyone supporting more opportunity for working and middle class people wants to take something away from rich people?

Because that is what is happening, to a greater and greater extent. We have a progressive federal income tax that increases as a person becomes more successful. We also have a huge system of entitlements that we cannot pay for. Even if the IRS confiscated every dime that the 52% of people actually paying income tax make, it wouldn’t last longer than 15 days of our debt.

And, that is the common narrative from the media. Or, I should say, the COMMUNIST narrative.

 

[sedonaman]

…If there is no zero sum game, then why is it automatically assumed that anyone supporting more opportunity for working and middle class people wants to take something away from rich people?

Because you also said that “the rich” should pay a fair share of taxes. Did it ever occur to you that they are paying their fair share because Congress set their taxes? The only ones not paying their “fair” share are the ones evading taxes. Whatever they are paying, it is fair by definition because Congress said as much by passing the tax law. :sad_yes: If you think their taxes are not fair, stop the adjectives and give us some numbers. Design a tax chart or tax rate schedule of what you think is fair. Also include tax deductions/exemptions that you would allow and/or eliminate.

Life was a lot harder as little as 100 years ago. If our economy is a zero sum game, where did all our prosperity come from since then?

---

“To fund liberal programs, confiscate liberal wealth.”

 

[Seeker1961]

Because you also said that “the rich” should pay a fair share of taxes. Did it ever occur to you that they are paying their fair share because Congress set their taxes? The only ones not paying their “fair” share are the ones evading taxes. Whatever they are paying, it is fair by definition because Congress said as much by passing the tax law. :sad_yes: If you think their taxes are not fair, stop the adjectives and give us some numbers. Design a tax chart or tax rate schedule of what you think is fair. Also include tax deductions/exemptions that you would allow and/or eliminate.

Life was a lot harder as little as 100 years ago. If our economy is a zero sum game, where did all our prosperity come from since then?

---

“To fund liberal programs, confiscate liberal wealth.”

Again…adding things that aren’t there. I pointed out that tax rates for the wealthy were higher under Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush 1 and that the economy was doing better. You decided that meant that I felt the rich weren’t paying their fair share. I know it’s fun to put people in those stereotypical boxes, but very few people actually fit in them. Most of the country is neither Red or Blue.

I don’t view taxation as something evil. I’ve been well off and paid high taxes and I’ve been poor and paid lower taxes. It’s a price I GLADLY pay to live here and benefit from the resources this country provides me. Are there things I don’t like paying for? Of course, but I expect that in a pluralistic society. We’re not going to agree on what taxes should pay for. I would love it if the bulk of my money went to creating a healthy, well-educated population. I’d be happy to see my money go to job creation. I’m not happy about taxes paying for killing people-no matter who they are.

 

[sedonaman]

… I’ve been well off and paid high taxes and I’ve been poor and paid lower taxes. It’s a price I GLADLY pay to live here and benefit from the resources this country provides me. …

Then your course of action is obvious: pay more taxes. You can do it by making out a check to the Bureau of the Public Debt., P. O. Box 2188, Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188.

 

[Seeker1961]

Then your course of action is obvious: pay more taxes. You can do it by making out a check to the Bureau of the Public Debt., P. O. Box 2188, Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188.

I could throw a talking point back, but I don’t play that game. Have a blessed day.