• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health care law held constitutional in latest appeals court ruling

teamosil said:
What it tells you is that liberal policy works a lot better than conservative policy economically. The blue states are thriving with their higher taxes and greater social spending while the red states are falling behind with their low taxes and crippling lack of investment in their population. The lesson is that when you don't invest much in keeping your society strong, you undercut your future.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make any sense, as both Red and Blue states are represented in the top 10 of the US's worst economies. No, it's better to conclude that the primary reason these states are in such disarray is that our overly intrusive national government has quashed any attempt to build a strong private sector, and has left the economies in total shambles.
 
Sunbelt said:
That doesn't make any sense, as both Red and Blue states are represented in the top 10 of the US's worst economies. No, it's better to conclude that the primary reason these states are in such disarray is that our overly intrusive national government has quashed any attempt to build a strong private sector, and has left the economies in total shambles.
Click to expand...

LOL. So contrary to the actual data above, which clearly demonstrates that blue states are by and large doing way better economically, we should just throw that out and leap to the opposite conclusion for no reason... Good one.
 
teamosil said:
LOL. So contrary to the actual data above, which clearly demonstrates that blue states are by and large doing way better economically, we should just throw that out and leap to the opposite conclusion for no reason... Good one.
Click to expand...
Your irrelevant data indicates annual income; it says nothing about the economic condition of each state. Who do you think you are? Well, we know who you think you are, but we're not going to get into all that! ;)

Taken from the CNBC website, the top five economies are as follows: Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Iowa & Colorado. The bottom five are: Rhode Island, Nevada, Alaska, South Carolina & Indiana. Now, in case you continue in the spirit of idiot comparisons with "My states have less/more in the top/bottom five than yours", you will find that Red wins at both ends of the rankings.

For your reading pleasure: News Headlines
 
Last edited:
Sunbelt said:
Your irrelevant data indicates annual income; it says nothing about the economic condition of each state. Who do you think you are? Well, we know who you think you are, but we're not going to get into all that! ;)

Taken from the CNBC website, the top five economies are as follows: Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Iowa & Colorado. The bottom five are: Rhode Island, Nevada, Alaska, South Carolina & Indiana. Now, in case you continue in the spirit of the idiot "My states have less/more in the top/bottom five than yours" comparison, you will find that Red wins at both ends of the rankings.

For your reading pleasure: News Headlines
Click to expand...

"Best economies" is a very vague standard there... We don't know what exactly they're measuring. Like does that look at growth rate or absolute position? How does it weigh median income vs average income? They mention a few times "the best economies FOR BUSINESSES" which seems to imply that they're looking mostly at how good the economy is for corporations, not people. So that would certainly slant to favor red states. The most meaningful indicator of economic success is median income, which is what I posted.
 
teamosil said:
"Best economies" is a very vague standard there... We don't know what exactly they're measuring.
Click to expand...
Not unlike trying to use annual income data of wage earners to describe the economic condition of each state.

teamosil said:
The most meaningful indicator of economic success is median income, which is what I posted.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. It's what CNBC posted -- a nationally recognized organization. You're but one anonymous forum member from San Francisco: a hotbed of bias & radical liberalism.
 
Last edited:
Sunbelt said:
Not unlike trying to use annual income data of wage earners to describe the economic condition of each state.

No, it isn't. It's what CNBC posted -- a nationally recognized organization. You're but one anonymous forum member from San Francisco: a hotbed of bias & radical liberalism.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about kiddo? CNBC didn't even say what indicators they were measuring that I saw. How can you argue that they were using the right ones?

Median income is the most important because it shows how much economic success the average guy is actually getting. Looking at things like, for example, GDP growth, can give you highly distorted results. For example, if you have 1,000 people in a city and one of them makes $1 billion, but everybody else makes $0, that would be a destitute third world country, but looking just at GDP you'd assume that they were by far the richest country in the world. Or you have many indicators that basically just equate to "state allows businesses to push their costs off on to the public through externalities". That's basically what "good for business" indicators tend to mean...

Anyways, if you want to debate this, you would need to actually pick an indicator that you think is better than median income and then we'll have something to debate.
 
teamosil said:
What it tells you is that liberal policy works a lot better than conservative policy economically. The blue states are thriving with their higher taxes and greater social spending while the red states are falling behind with their low taxes and crippling lack of investment in their population. The lesson is that when you don't invest much in keeping your society strong, you undercut your future.
Click to expand...

There are major military and arms manufacturing in the 5 top blue states you listed. Alaska has oil, which is why IT'S up there...Hawaii doesn't really count, as it's economy is based solely on wealthy tourism, Virginia also boasts a decent bit of military spending, Cali can't be mentioned because it's average is thrown off by the movie industry, and Minnesota grows corn, a federal subsidized crop, as well as boasting something like 75% of the nations iron resources. That handles the top ten. Posting average median incomes per state, and claiming that THAT has some bearing on how well that state's policies work, is not a very effective method.
 
KevinKohler said:
There are major military and arms manufacturing in the 5 top blue states you listed. Alaska has oil, which is why IT'S up there...Hawaii doesn't really count, as it's economy is based solely on wealthy tourism, Virginia also boasts a decent bit of military spending, Cali can't be mentioned because it's average is thrown off by the movie industry, and Minnesota grows corn, a federal subsidized crop, as well as boasting something like 75% of the nations iron resources. That handles the top ten. Posting average median incomes per state, and claiming that THAT has some bearing on how well that state's policies work, is not a very effective method.
Click to expand...

It's median, not average. Those are different things. Average is misleading because of exactly what you say- a few high income earners can throw it off. Median is the amount the average person makes, not the average amount a person makes. That's why I use median. So, for example, say you have three people. Two of them each make $1 per week and the third makes $1,000 per week, then the average income is $334/week, but the median is $1.

As for the government spending, not that the biggest net contributors to the federal budget are blue and the biggest withdrawers are red. What that means, to be a net contributor, is that the amount of taxes you send in is more than the amount of federal spending in your state. So, for example, New Jersey leads the pack at 55%. That means that for every dollar in taxes they pay to the federal government, the government spends $0.55 in New Jersey.
 
If you want to look at the economics of each state the best stat available is the misery index. If you average out the blue and red states they come out statistically similar, with the red states having a very slight lead.

Red: 10.37
Blue: 10.55

Interestingly, the "purple" states (states with both republican and democrat representatives) have a significant advantage: 9.88

Misery Index by State | DataMasher
 
ksu_aviator said:
If you want to look at the economics of each state the best stat available is the misery index. If you average out the blue and red states they come out statistically similar, with the red states having a very slight lead.

Red: 10.37
Blue: 10.55

Interestingly, the "purple" states (states with both republican and democrat representatives) have a significant advantage: 9.88

Misery Index by State | DataMasher
Click to expand...

That doesn't tell the story, either. Take FL, for example. They got hit, and hit HARD by the recession, because their economy relies on the well being of the rest of the state's economies. And there was that little spill, too...
 
teamosil said:
It's median, not average. Those are different things. Average is misleading because of exactly what you say- a few high income earners can throw it off. Median is the amount the average person makes, not the average amount a person makes. That's why I use median. So, for example, say you have three people. Two of them each make $1 per week and the third makes $1,000 per week, then the average income is $334/week, but the median is $1.

As for the government spending, not that the biggest net contributors to the federal budget are blue and the biggest withdrawers are red. What that means, to be a net contributor, is that the amount of taxes you send in is more than the amount of federal spending in your state. So, for example, New Jersey leads the pack at 55%. That means that for every dollar in taxes they pay to the federal government, the government spends $0.55 in New Jersey.
Click to expand...

OK, then Cali must be doing something right, to have that high of.....OH, I can't continue that thought, because last I looked, Cali is the most broke ass state in the union. Didn't they issue IOUs at tax time a year or two ago, lol? Hardly the best posterchild for effective liberal policy. As for New Jersey and CT leading the pack, this is simply not a true statement. A good 58% of ALL money earned in CT is from the military industrial complex. That's TAX money, from the federal government, getting spent in this state, in addition to whatever aid and federal programs we get. NJ is likely the same, in terms of military arms manufacturing. Those are union factory jobs, and they pay a LOT of people, a LOT of money, keeping these northeastern economies afloat, even during times to economic crisis.
 
KevinKohler said:
OK, then Cali must be doing something right, to have that high of.....OH, I can't continue that thought, because last I looked, Cali is the most broke ass state in the union. Didn't they issue IOUs at tax time a year or two ago, lol? Hardly the best posterchild for effective liberal policy.
Click to expand...

You're blurring together how much deficit the state government has and how well the state is doing. It's true that CA has a $25 billion budget deficit. That is because of the damn propositions. Voters have locked in mandatory spending while at the same time forbidding tax increases... It's idiotic. Ultimately we need to undo the propositions.

But, that has very little to do with how well the state is or isn't doing. $25 billion is just over 1% of CA's GDP. That's nothing. That doesn't change the fact that the state is a massive economic powerhouse. It has led the last two big booms and is on its way to lead the next one.

KevinKohler said:
As for New Jersey and CT leading the pack, this is simply not a true statement. A good 58% of ALL money earned in CT is from the military industrial complex. That's TAX money, from the federal government, getting spent in this state, in addition to whatever aid and federal programs we get. NJ is likely the same, in terms of military arms manufacturing. Those are union factory jobs, and they pay a LOT of people, a LOT of money, keeping these northeastern economies afloat, even during times to economic crisis.
Click to expand...

Nope, NJ is the largest net contributor to the federal budget and Connecticut is the second biggest one. LESS federal money is spent there per dollar of taxes they pay to the fed than any other states. So your theory seems to be exactly the opposite of what is happening.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Your right a law made through the legislative process is "treasonous"?
But wait, how is this treasonous?
Click to expand...
The legisture can't just do whatever they want, it has to be within the limits of the Constitution.
 
Mycroft said:
You are quite correct...and I'm not worried too much about this Appeals Court ruling, except for this attitude:

"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins," wrote Judge Laurence Silberman.
Click to expand...

I find this statement to most alarming, coming from a court charged with upholding the Constitution, for this statement negates the fundamental notion that the Constitution is a constraint on government power.
Click to expand...

Why? Judge Silberman is only reiterating what Justice Jackson said concerning congressional implementation of a national health care system, if they so choose to do so.

"The orderly way to nationalize insurance supervision, if it be desireable, is not by court decision, but through legislation. Congress...if it thinks the time has come to take insurance regulation into the federal system, may formulate and announce the whole scope and effect of its action in advance, fix a future effective date, and avoid all the confusion, surprise, and injustice which will be caused by the action of the Court." - Justice Jackson, dissenting opinion in U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters (1944)
Click to expand...

I draw the reader's attention to post #30 of this thread.

When it's all said and done, I believe the PPACA, aka, "ObamaCare" will be ruled constitutional. It's already been ruled by lower appeals courts that the States don't have standing for two reasons: 1) federal law always trumps state law; and, 2) since the taxing provision of the healthcare reform law has yet to take affect, the States cannot challenge its economic impact on the grounds of financial imposition.
 
teamosil said:
What are you talking about kiddo? CNBC didn't even say what indicators they were measuring that I saw. How can you argue that they were using the right ones?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about, sport? There's a helluva lot more that goes into an economy than personal income. Your list is just one part of a much larger list. CNBC is certainly not the best tv network, but I'm certain they've put more thought into their research than you've put into yours. Now stop defending your idiotic list and just admit that you're wrong.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
I draw the reader's attention to post #30 of this thread.
Click to expand...

Post #30 is about regulating commerce between the states. No where does it show that the federal government can make anyone buy something...be it inside a state or across state lines. And that is certainly what Justice Black (referenced in post #30 of your link) was referring to. That of regulating commerce between the states. Not the regulating of individuals.

Objective Voice said:
When it's all said and done, I believe the PPACA, aka, "ObamaCare" will be ruled constitutional. It's already been ruled by lower appeals courts that the States don't have standing for two reasons: 1) federal law always trumps state law; and, 2) since the taxing provision of the healthcare reform law has yet to take affect, the States cannot challenge its economic impact on the grounds of financial imposition.
Click to expand...

1: Federal law does not trump individual rights. And forcing me to buy something just because I'm alive is certainly interfering with my right to choose not to buy something. 2: Which is bullchit since everyone under Gods green Earth KNOWS that it WILL be effecting everyone once 2013 rolls around. Just because its not effecting them currently does not change this fact.
 
teamosil said:
You're blurring together how much deficit the state government has and how well the state is doing. It's true that CA has a $25 billion budget deficit. That is because of the damn propositions. Voters have locked in mandatory spending while at the same time forbidding tax increases... It's idiotic. Ultimately we need to undo the propositions.

But, that has very little to do with how well the state is or isn't doing. $25 billion is just over 1% of CA's GDP. That's nothing. That doesn't change the fact that the state is a massive economic powerhouse. It has led the last two big booms and is on its way to lead the next one.



Nope, NJ is the largest net contributor to the federal budget and Connecticut is the second biggest one. LESS federal money is spent there per dollar of taxes they pay to the fed than any other states. So your theory seems to be exactly the opposite of what is happening.
Click to expand...

Less federal money is spent here in terms of programs and such, maybe. But out leading export in CT are jets, helicopters, guns, and submarines. Those items account for over 50% of our economy. Now tell me...who purchases CTs jets, guns, helicopters, and submarines? The federal government. And what money does said government use to purchases these products?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom