• 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's approval rating grows following memorable week

You said it was not a legal question, then said it was a legal question. Try and keep up.

Perhaps you can quote me on that?

Of course, you will not because all I did was simply expose how utterly inane your use of the term CONSENT was in this topic.
 
Perhaps you can quote me on that?

Simply a question arising from your statement. No legal opinion is necessary as we are not in court.

what the heck does CONSENT have to do with a national program which applies to the citizenry which has been passed by the peoples government and upheld by the judiciary?

Any response that does not directly address this will be admission of defeat. I dare you to admit defeat.
 
Except that private insurance had one major difference -- consent.

Not as much of a difference as you expect. While it is true that under the old system you were free not to buy health insurance, you would be doing so putting yourself and your neighbor at risk. You see, you would be playing the reverse lottery, which is known as the American Healthcare system. So long as you did not have a problem, you would be alright and not be asking others to pay for your healthcare. However, should you lose the lottery, you would go bankrupt AND your neighbor would pay for your healthcare.

Prior to the PPACA, the average healthcare policy included a $1,000 per year charge to pay for the uninsured (a $43B problem) AND the federal government picked up another $70B (which worked out to another $600 per taxpayer per year). Under the PPACA, you are no longer allowed to play this lottery and off-load that risk on the rest of us.
 
I know conservatives don't know what's in the Constitution but there's this preamble thingy that gives the reasons for creating the document and along with "provide for the common defense" there's "promote the general welfare" in it. Those are both pretty broad mandates. Article I goes on to give Congress the power to create laws. There's at least as much justification for creating a health care system as there is for creating a standing professional army, navy (but no air force since that's definitely not in there, right?).

Yes, got it, provide and promote mean exactly the same thing, brilliant. Our Founders got it, when will you
 
Much better than yours. Your numbers above are all wrong and I know why: you didn't go by fiscal years. The first FY of a new president doesn't begin until Oct. 1 not the day he's inaugurated. That would mean that Carter's is only $300B, Reagan $1.9T, Bush I $1.7T, Clinton $1.2T, BushII $6.1T and Obama to date is $6.2T. The grand totals by party comes to $9.7T republicans to $7.7T for democrats. But that's also not really accurate because the interest on previously created debt does eventually show up on later presidents "score card." When the interest of the first term of the two term presidents is removed from the equation then the amounts come to about $7.2T for republicans and $4.2 for dems.

That is true, on January 21, 2001 when Bush took office the debt was 5.7 trillion dollars and on January 21, 2009 when he left office it was 10.6 trillion which is 4.9 trillion. Your bias and ignorance is staggering. Learn how to do research and actually get the data on the links. Getting rather tired of making liberals look foolish only to have actual data ignored trumped by ideology and feelings. It is also quite interesting that Bush didn't have a budget for 2009 until Obama signed it in March. Figures don't lie but liars do figure.
 
Any response that does not directly address this will be admission of defeat. I dare you to admit defeat.

You want this addressed directly? Sure. This will be as direct as a Mack truck at ninety miles per hour making contact with your sub-compact.

You were NOT asked for a legal opinion. The quote you provided from me clearly states that it is not a legal question. I made that clear. You brought up the idea of CONSENT in this discussion and I asked you very DIRECTLY what the heck CONSENT has to do with a national program passed by the peoples government for the citizenry. And you have been unable to explain that.

You can dare me to admit defeat all day. In order to make that plea a legitimate one, you first have to engage in the discussion and actually cause my defeat. And so far you have not even taken the first baby step towards that end.

You can begin by explaining what CONSENT - the point you raised regrading the health care issue - has to do with this.

I am glad to discuss things with other posters here. Lets see you attempt to begin to do that by explaining your own comment that I originally posted about.
 
What possible difference do the poll numbers of a sitting POTUS who is on his last term?

None whatsoever.

His numbers could be through the roof or in the basement - what possible difference does it make?
 
That is true, on January 21, 2001 when Bush took office the debt was 5.7 trillion dollars and on January 21, 2009 when he left office it was 10.6 trillion which is 4.9 trillion. Your bias and ignorance is staggering. Learn how to do research and actually get the data on the links. Getting rather tired of making liberals look foolish only to have actual data ignored trumped by ideology and feelings. It is also quite interesting that Bush didn't have a budget for 2009 until Obama signed it in March. Figures don't lie but liars do figure.

Just like I said. You used the false method rightwing method of inauguration dates not the actual method the the nation uses in its accounting system and then you charge me with bias? That's the famous rightwing symptom called "projection." The really funny thing is how you all always think you're clever and no one will check your claims out. When we do and discover the deception then you pull the silliness that you did above. It's so ridiculously predictable.
 
Yes, got it, provide and promote mean exactly the same thing, brilliant. Our Founders got it, when will you

You stiil haven't provided us with the article and clause in the Constitution which prohibits Congress from creating a government funded health care system. You've proved yet again that the rightwing not only doesn't know what's in the Constitution it also doesn't know what not in it.
 
You stiil haven't provided us with the article and clause in the Constitution which prohibits Congress from creating a government funded health care system.

The SCOTUS ruling said PPACA was unconstitutional on commerce clause grounds.
 
The SCOTUS ruling said PPACA was unconstitutional on commerce clause grounds.

Well, then the PPACA must not exist anymore. And, yet it miraculously does exist, intact and now the victor in three attempts to kill it in SCOTUS. You seem to fancy yourself as some sort of constitutional or legal expert so how do you explain the the law was found unconstitutional and yet still exists?
 
Well, then the PPACA must not exist anymore.

No, it was unconstitutional on commerce clause grounds, but since it is not a tax, the case can go forward, but because it is a tax, congress has the power to tax. That is why it is constitutional.
 
but since it is not a tax, the case can go forward, but because it is a tax, congress has the power to tax.

It's not a tax but it is a tax? Wow. It's like a word scramble on the fridge. BTW, did you ever see my question to you on "consent?" If so, I wonder why you decided not to address it.
 
It's not a tax but it is a tax?

BTW, did you ever see my question to you on "consent?"

Did you not read the case?

Roberts first claims the law is unconstitutional on the commerce clause question. Roberts then claimed that because it is not a tax the case can go forward (tax cases have to happen only after someone has paid the tax), he then said that because this is a tax, and that congress has taxing powers, the law is constitutional.

Are you that hay guy? Which post number did you ask about "consent"?
 
You left out the directly addressing it part. I appreciate you admitting defeat.

If I spoke any more directly they would be placing you six feet underground right at this very moment.

You never explained the relevance of your CONSENT comments. And still have not done so rejecting actual debate in favor of childish attacks.
 
Post #328 will cure all your ills.
 
Did you not read the case?
Roberts first claims the law is unconstitutional on the commerce clause question. Roberts then claimed that because it is not a tax the case can go forward (tax cases have to happen only after someone has paid the tax), he then said that because this is a tax, and that congress has taxing powers, the law is constitutional.

I sure did read it and I'd recommend that you do so as well. What Roberts wrote was a single opinion on the commerce clause issue. Since he did not join the other 4 rightwing justices in their opinion that the law was unconstitutional on the commerce clause basis it was irrelevant as far as a ruling goes. The court was given 3 arguments by the government for why the PPACA was constitutional. All it had to do was pick one and it did so. You ought to be careful with your snarkiness. As for the question about consent, you made a comment (I think it was to "haymarket") to the effect that people were being forced to pay for health insurance without their consent and I pointed out that no one asked my consent to pay for their medical bills when they didn't buy insurance or bought inadequate insurance and ended up being unable to pay their bills thus passing their medical expenses on to people who did buy insurance or to the government for their care. I'd also point out that it would be absurd to require that we get individual consent to pay taxes (remember, the mandate was ruled to be constitutional under Congress's taxing authority). Who wouldn't like that little arrangement. You live in a society and are not a sovereign citizen despite the libertoonian nonsense who can pick and choose which laws apply to you and which don't.
 
You never explained the relevance of your CONSENT comments. And still have not done so rejecting actual debate in favor of childish attacks.

She's a bit, let's say, scrambled in her explanations of things. I sense that ineffable whiff of libertoonianism which dwells in the hinterlands of absurdity.
 
Just like I said. You used the false method rightwing method of inauguration dates not the actual method the the nation uses in its accounting system and then you charge me with bias? That's the famous rightwing symptom called "projection." The really funny thing is how you all always think you're clever and no one will check your claims out. When we do and discover the deception then you pull the silliness that you did above. It's so ridiculously predictable.


No, I used actual results, those are the numbers the President INHERITED but like all economically challenged liberals you believe budgets are actual spending and you hold Republicans to a different standard. Only in the liberal world is the President(Republican) responsible for the entire yearly debt when in office from Oct-January. It is interesting how results never matter and arrogance takes over. Liberalism is a failure, total and complete. Your passion for it says a lot about you
 
What Roberts wrote was a single opinion on the commerce clause issue.

Since he did not join the other 4 rightwing justices in their opinion that the law was unconstitutional on the commerce clause basis it was irrelevant as far as a ruling goes.

As for the question about consent, you made a comment (I think it was to "haymarket") to the effect that people were being forced to pay for health insurance without their consent and I pointed out that no one asked my consent to pay for their medical bills when they didn't buy insurance or bought inadequate insurance and ended up being unable to pay their bills thus passing their medical expenses on to people who did buy insurance or to the government for their care.

The other justices joined him in that part, which makes it precedent.

But you obviously consent to PPACA with your vapid support.
 
You stiil haven't provided us with the article and clause in the Constitution which prohibits Congress from creating a government funded health care system. You've proved yet again that the rightwing not only doesn't know what's in the Constitution it also doesn't know what not in it.

Congress can do whatever it wants to do but the intent of our Founders is being ignored. Our Founders put the power closest to the people because they understood that power corrupts. That local power is state and local governments which is where healthcare belongs. Further bipartisan support for legislation is the best legislation, not partisan legislation like ACA, how many Republicans voted for ACA? But I do thank you for ACA as it led to loss of Congress and state houses
 
The founders would role over in their graves if they knew the size and scope our defense spending today. Most of them didn't even like the idea of a standing army and preferred the country be defended by citizen militias.

Our defense spending? How about the size of the govt. in general and the national debt? Defense spending today is between 600-700 billion dollars out of the 3.9 TRILLION Dollar budget Obama proposed. Doesn't appear that you have the same outrage over the rest of the spending as you do defense.
 
Back
Top Bottom