• 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!

Obama says Supreme Court should never have taken up health law case

To the bolded, all taxes meet that definition. I'm certain what really bothers you is what the taken money is used for. Feeding children at school, HELL NO, welfare for Israel, how much do you want. Food stamps for the impoverished, HELL NO, money for the Pentagon, how much do you need. R&D for aids, HELL NO, money to militarize our police forces, how much do you need. Both parties favor big government, big spending, they only differ in where and how.

I don't mind helping people with a hand up. I do mind supporting someone that makes a career out of gaming the system. I do mind a govt that spends money had over fist on negative productive programs, contracts or research grants. I don't trust the govt not to squander the hard earned money I am charged for taxes. I agree that politicians on both sides want to increase taxes, regardless of what they say. If they take a dollar out of my pocket then give it to someone that needs it and not to research how many times a mosquito beats it's wing a second or to figure out how to use bumble bees as chemical weapons, or to try to control the weather or create "midnight basketball" programs. All of the aforementioned were actual cases of squandered money with absolutely zero results.

I have an Ex-wife that was a welfare queen. She figured out that she would get a raise every time she popped out another kid. Thank God only the first two of them were mine. She finally was convicted of welfare fraud by claiming that I was not paying child support. I produced all of the receipts and checks that proved she was lying. I still payed more than 20k in debt that she owed to the state for money she received fraudulently. She voted for Obama. Wonder why that is.

I think most people are willing to help out folks that need a hand but I don't think everyone just endorses total trust to the govt to weed out the fraud. It is their job to do that but they fall so far short, as do most govt agencies. Hell, just look at the VA. Talk about a waste of money with less than minimal results. I think some agencies actually promote fraud. I do not think it is a person's right to sit on their butt for their whole life and sponge off the govt.

I agree mostly agree with you but I am a stickler with fraud. When it comes to any program, whether it involves govt contractors, politicians or individuals, if they steal the taxes I paid then they need to go to jail. I just think a lot of people need to go to jail. It isn't "their" money they are wasting. It is MY money, it is OUR money, it isn't THEIR money. We entrust them to safeguard our taxes and most of them think it's a game.
 
Everyone participates in living and because the living does not respond to ordinary market forces. Everyone has a need to live at some point in their life and the overwhelming majority of individuals can not afford the actual cost associated with most living. It requires an odd interpretation for someone to try and claim that "being alive" or "a beating heart" is the sole responsibility of the individual when the society also faces tremendous costs when that individual can not afford to live and is necessary to deal with their issue.

Clearly your logic also applies to food, water, living quarters, entertainment, transportation, a wage, retirement, and burial.

You forgot internet, electricity, phone, flat screens, hookers, recreational drugs, hot cars with stupid looking wheels and massive sound systems.
 
Do you want to count how many from this list are regulated to some degree by the Federal Government? Or would you like me to count for you?

Regulation does not make those items a right.
 
I believe the Chief Justice doesn't want the legacy - the Roberts Court shot down Obamacare. He saved it once and he'll do it again, IMHO.

I am afraid you might be right but for the wrong reason. I am not sure it is about his legacy but that is another discussion.
 
It WAS disrespectful of Obama to make the comments that he has. So what? It is Obama's job to push his agenda and that is what he did. Other presidents have done. I think his agenda totally sucks but I have to be honest here. It doesn't matter, other than he might have just pushed the wrong button with the SCOTUS, which would be a good thing.
 
Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

I don't understand why Obama would publically question what cases the Supreme Court should hear in the first place. They don't report to him. Things are getting stranger by the day in DC! :shock:

He thinks his charisma might win them over. Don't they know just exactly who he is?
 
almost everyone is stealing taxes. go to any VA parking lot and LOOK at the vehicles driven by the "poor' veterans soaking up your tax $, folks. $50,000 pickup trucks and SUV's ,most of them. yeah, they are hurting for money SO BADLY
 
I think it's totally appropriate. President George W. Bush, for instance, did not hesitate to criticize a 2008 ruling recognizing the rights of prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But I suspect it only bothers you if it's a democrat doing it.

Do you think criticizing a decision has the same quality as allowing a case to be made?
 
I don't mind helping people with a hand up. I do mind supporting someone that makes a career out of gaming the system. I do mind a govt that spends money had over fist on negative productive programs, contracts or research grants. I don't trust the govt not to squander the hard earned money I am charged for taxes. I agree that politicians on both sides want to increase taxes, regardless of what they say. If they take a dollar out of my pocket then give it to someone that needs it and not to research how many times a mosquito beats it's wing a second or to figure out how to use bumble bees as chemical weapons, or to try to control the weather or create "midnight basketball" programs. All of the aforementioned were actual cases of squandered money with absolutely zero results.

I have an Ex-wife that was a welfare queen. She figured out that she would get a raise every time she popped out another kid. Thank God only the first two of them were mine. She finally was convicted of welfare fraud by claiming that I was not paying child support. I produced all of the receipts and checks that proved she was lying. I still payed more than 20k in debt that she owed to the state for money she received fraudulently. She voted for Obama. Wonder why that is.

I think most people are willing to help out folks that need a hand but I don't think everyone just endorses total trust to the govt to weed out the fraud. It is their job to do that but they fall so far short, as do most govt agencies. Hell, just look at the VA. Talk about a waste of money with less than minimal results. I think some agencies actually promote fraud. I do not think it is a person's right to sit on their butt for their whole life and sponge off the govt.

I agree mostly agree with you but I am a stickler with fraud. When it comes to any program, whether it involves govt contractors, politicians or individuals, if they steal the taxes I paid then they need to go to jail. I just think a lot of people need to go to jail. It isn't "their" money they are wasting. It is MY money, it is OUR money, it isn't THEIR money. We entrust them to safeguard our taxes and most of them think it's a game.

Hey, I'm with you when it comes to waste, fraud and abuse of my tax dollars, not only by your ex welfare queen, but by our politicians that can loose 8 billion dollars of palletized, 100 dollar bills in Iraq, bridges to nowhere, gratuitous wars, militarization of the nations police departments, corporate welfare, etc. but I'm far more offended by welfare being gamed from my tax dollars by Israel then your ex wife.
 
Do you think criticizing a decision has the same quality as allowing a case to be made?

Obama has no authority in what the SCOTUS hears, so that's as much opinion as the rest of his comments on it so, yes.
 
Since who doesn't control the congress? Democrats are working with republicans in that effort. So do you like that, or is that somehow different because you don't give a **** about Medicare anyway?

Who controlled the Congress from 2007-2011? Democrats created Obamacare behind closed doors. show me the Republican bill that took 700 billion from Medicare?
 
Last edited:
Does that mean that you question the sense of all presidents that have criticized SCOTUS's? I just don't understand why a president can't do this. He's an American citizen before he's president. I criticize SCOTUS rulings I disagree with. Bush did as president, it just seems so natural and unimportant.

I will never agree that being POTUS is secondary to being a citizen, mainly because the POTUS has a job unlike anyone else in the country, with a bully pulpit that goes with it. When was the last time you got on TV and told millions of people what you thought about anything? When his term of office is over, then he becomes "just a citizen" like everyone else, and we see every day just how much anyone cares about what "used-to-be's" think about anything. :yawn: Plus, the POTUS is supposed to represent We the People, not just those that agree with him, and the SCOTUS has their job to do the same as he does, which means there is going to be a winner AND a loser - that's what they're there to determine! That's my opinion, Monte, and it's not likely to change, so I'll say no more. :rantoff:
 
I will never agree that being POTUS is secondary to being a citizen, mainly because the POTUS has a job unlike anyone else in the country, with a bully pulpit that goes with it.
When was the last time you got on TV and told millions of people what you thought about anything?
When his term of office is over, then he becomes "just a citizen" like everyone else, and we see every day just how much anyone cares about what "used-to-be's" think about anything. :yawn: Plus, the POTUS is supposed to represent We the People, not just those that agree with him, and the SCOTUS has their job to do the same as he does, which means there is going to be a winner AND a loser - that's what they're there to determine! That's my opinion, Monte, and it's not likely to change, so I'll say no more. :rantoff:

Shucks, Pol. I can't even remember the last time I actually thought about anything, let alone tell anybody about it.
 
You forgot internet, electricity, phone, flat screens, hookers, recreational drugs, hot cars with stupid looking wheels and massive sound systems.

Up until you got to hookers, you still very much are listing aspects of the economy that the federal government helps to regulate in some form or fashion.

Regulation does not make those items a right.

I did not say that regulation makes it a right. I said the list wherein you and Samhein tried to apply my logic to other aspects of society and pointed out the simple fact that federal government can, does, and should have a role to play in all of those.

Now, do you want to make the argument that access to affordable health care is not something that every US citizen should be able to access?
 
Who controlled the Congress from 2007-2011? Democrats created Obamacare behind closed doors. show me the Republican bill that took 700 billion from Medicare?

Why don't you try paying attention? I said that democrats are working with republicans to do this!
 
I will never agree that being POTUS is secondary to being a citizen, mainly because the POTUS has a job unlike anyone else in the country, with a bully pulpit that goes with it. When was the last time you got on TV and told millions of people what you thought about anything? When his term of office is over, then he becomes "just a citizen" like everyone else, and we see every day just how much anyone cares about what "used-to-be's" think about anything. :yawn: Plus, the POTUS is supposed to represent We the People, not just those that agree with him, and the SCOTUS has their job to do the same as he does, which means there is going to be a winner AND a loser - that's what they're there to determine! That's my opinion, Monte, and it's not likely to change, so I'll say no more. :rantoff:

Obama was a citizen first, and as our constitution insists, one must FIRST be a citizen in order to become president. Of course citizenship precedes presidency. You didn't speak to the point of presidential (plural!!!) criticisms of the SCOTUS.
 
If they had read the bill before passing it. But it's just a waste of time trying to debate them. It'll be wiser to let them find out how wrong they really are. Just make sure you have enough popcorn to enjoy the show.
 
Why don't you try paying attention? I said that democrats are working with republicans to do this!

Ok, what does that have to do with the thread topic or the comments made about taxes and their use?
 
Ok, what does that have to do with the thread topic or the comments made about taxes and their use?

Medicare money IS tax money, and you likely won't be opposing using it to pay for retraining all those Americans that will be loosing their jobs due to that pos TPP. it's the hypocrisy which is relevant.
 
Do you want to count how many from this list are regulated to some degree by the Federal Government? Or would you like me to count for you?

Your logic stated that because you have to have it and not everyone can pay for it, the government must be involved. That isn't regulation.

Stop trying to change the meaning of your rant, own it, and start calling for a set of freebies that everyone should get.
 
Your logic stated that because you have to have it and not everyone can pay for it, the government must be involved. That isn't regulation.

Stop trying to change the meaning of your rant, own it, and start calling for a set of freebies that everyone should get.

Strawman. A bit ironic given your profile name and picture.

I said that healthcare does not respond to normal market forces. Everyone needs health care and very few can pay for the full cost and society bears a great deal of burden to compensate for those individuals who still obtain the healthcare, but can not afford the costs, and society also bears a great deal of burden to compensate for those individuals who do not obtain the healthcare. Those are very valid reasons for the need to regulate.
 
Medicare money IS tax money, and you likely won't be opposing using it to pay for retraining all those Americans that will be loosing their jobs due to that pos TPP. it's the hypocrisy which is relevant.

Yes, I will be opposing that as the FICA taxes were created to fund SS and Medicare, not unemployment insurance. That seems to be the problem with people like you, no understand of the taxes you pay and their intent. All money is the same to you and that was never the intent.
 
Strawman. A bit ironic given your profile name and picture.

I said that healthcare does not respond to normal market forces. Everyone needs health care and very few can pay for the full cost and society bears a great deal of burden to compensate for those individuals who still obtain the healthcare, but can not afford the costs, and society also bears a great deal of burden to compensate for those individuals who do not obtain the healthcare. Those are very valid reasons for the need to regulate.

The vast majority of the healthcare costs for the uninsured are paid for by the states and thus the taxpayers of the state making Healthcare a state issue. Just like with so many programs people are looking to the Federal Govt through the Federal Taxpayer to do what they cannot get done through their own state legislatures. MA created their own healthcare program so did Hawaii but that isn't good enough for social engineering liberals who want to impose their ideology on the rest of us.
 
Back
Top Bottom