• 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 Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutional(edited)

Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

meanwhile, SERIOUS americans are ALL looking at obamacare

cuz it's (at least for a little while longer) the LAW OF THE LAND

and it's a disaster

half trillion in cuts to medicare, all the while obama simultaneously expands its already teetering enrollment by millions:

Capitol Briefing - Senate votes to keep Medicare cuts

er costs increase:

ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe

doctors refuse new medicare patients:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

the doc fix passes, another quarter tril unaccounted for:

Senate passes 1-year doc fix - The Hill's Healthwatch

another quarter T double counted:

Budget Office Rebuts Democratic Claims on Medicare (Update1) - Bloomberg

our already broken backed states are burdened with 200 billion in the form of brand new medicaid enrollees

Governors balk over what healthcare bill will cost states - The Boston Globe

more than three quarters of a T in tax hikes

Director's Blog » Blog Archive » Additional Information on CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2

reality just aint no fun sometimes, huh

better to wish
 
soc sec---biggest boondoggle this side of red china

a govt program---especially one of this magnitude---in need of such massive FIX is a FAILURE

raise the retirement age, decrease benefits, increase contributions, higher income

why can't soc sec keep its promises?

SS was doing fine with huge surpluses every year until the 2009 lay offs and the expansion of Medicare.

If more money is needed to keep SS going, no big deal, all they have to do is draw on the $2 trillion dollars the government borrowed from it...

ricksfolly
 
SS was doing fine with huge surpluses every year until the 2009 lay offs and the expansion of Medicare.

If more money is needed to keep SS going, no big deal, all they have to do is draw on the $2 trillion dollars the government borrowed from it...

ricksfolly

Is this what you call a surplus? Do you understand that SS surpluses have been used since LBJ put SS on budget and the Congress authorized its use for other things thus getting replaced with IOU's. How are those IOU's going to be paid for?

Social Security IOU’s

Social Security IOUs stashed away - Washington Times
 
Is this what you call a surplus? Do you understand that SS surpluses have been used since LBJ put SS on budget and the Congress authorized its use for other things thus getting replaced with IOU's. How are those IOU's going to be paid for?

Social Security IOU’s

Social Security IOUs stashed away - Washington Times

The point is, it isn't medicare eating up the dollars. Like I tried to tell you earlier, others thing effect this.
 
The point is, it isn't medicare eating up the dollars. Like I tried to tell you earlier, others thing effect this.

Medicare is part of SS and neither would be in trouble if the govt. hadn't spent the surplus every year since the 60's
 
Medicare is part of SS and neither would be in trouble if the govt. hadn't spent the surplus every year since the 60's

exactly, meaning the programs themselves work, and spend better than private insurance. Thanks for admitting that. ;)
 
exactly, meaning the programs themselves work, and spend better than private insurance. Thanks for admitting that. ;)

Work for whom? The only reason they had a surplus was because they were getting money from individuals who were a long way from retirement. The surplus had nothing to do with management of the program.
 
Work for whom? The only reason they had a surplus was because they were getting money from individuals who were a long way from retirement. The surplus had nothing to do with management of the program.

They do what they are designed to do and cost less than we pay privately. That's the definition of working. ;)
 
They do what they are designed to do and cost less than we pay privately. That's the definition of working. ;)

Take your SS contribution along with your company's contribution into an investment calculator and see how much money you would have at retirement compared to what you get from SS. Only a liberal would think that SS is working.
 
Take your SS contribution along with your company's contribution into an investment calculator and see how much money you would have at retirement compared to what you get from SS. Only a liberal would think that SS is working.

People who would not have any retirement fund to speak of do now. That helps everyone. It is working. Sorry. :coffeepap
 
People who would not have any retirement fund to speak of do now. That helps everyone. It is working. Sorry. :coffeepap

Keep dodging and acting like you care about anyone else. If you truly cared you would stop supporting the high waste, fraud, and abuse of our federal tax dollars by an out of control expanding Federal Govt. I don't blame you from not doing as I suggested. The numbers would be staggering and it would be all yours for you and your family.
 
Keep dodging and acting like you care about anyone else. If you truly cared you would stop supporting the high waste, fraud, and abuse of our federal tax dollars by an out of control expanding Federal Govt. I don't blame you from not doing as I suggested. The numbers would be staggering and it would be all yours for you and your family.

Slow down there ranger, no one supports waste, fraud or abuse. Stop with the strawman nonsense. :coffeepap
 
Slow down there ranger, no one supports waste, fraud or abuse. Stop with the strawman nonsense. :coffeepap

That is what you do support when you propose an increase in the size of govt. which Obamacare does. Not sure why you continue to buy the rhetoric that a single payer system lowers costs.
 
That is what you do support when you propose an increase in the size of govt. which Obamacare does. Not sure why you continue to buy the rhetoric that a single payer system lowers costs.

Nonsense. There's corruption in the private sector as well, and I don't support it either. You're just throwing up strawmen trying to make it an argument you can win. It's a fallacy.
 
Nonsense. There's corruption in the private sector as well, and I don't support it either. You're just throwing up strawmen trying to make it an argument you can win. It's a fallacy.

Taxpayers don't fund corruption in the private sector, it is called personal choice where to spend your money. The fallacy is anyone that believes the Federal Govt. is effecient and can save money. Obviously you ignored the GAO Report yesterday. Not surprising from someone who will never admit when wrong.
 
Taxpayers don't fund corruption in the private sector, it is called personal choice where to spend your money. The fallacy is anyone that believes the Federal Govt. is effecient and can save money. Obviously you ignored the GAO Report yesterday. Not surprising from someone who will never admit when wrong.

We do as buyers, as customers, all the time.
 
We do as buyers, as customers, all the time.

Yes, but you have a choice whether or not to buy. You have no choice in paying taxes. Just admit you are wrong and we can move on rather than make statements that you know are comparing apples to oranges.
 
Yes, but you have a choice whether or not to buy. You have no choice in paying taxes. Just admit you are wrong and we can move on rather than make statements that you know are comparing apples to oranges.

If I know of the corruption. Many bought houses, and did so from corrupt folks in the private sector. Walstreet had some corruption, and they got more than a few people. Again and again, we find corruption, but not before many ahve been taken. If we use your reasoning, we should not allow the private sector to do business.
 
If I know of the corruption. Many bought houses, and did so from corrupt folks in the private sector. Walstreet had some corruption, and they got more than a few people. Again and again, we find corruption, but not before many ahve been taken. If we use your reasoning, we should not allow the private sector to do business.

Of course there is corruption in the private sector but you have a choice whether or not to buy a house, whether or not to invest in Wall Street, but there isn't a private business out there there forces you to buy their services nor is there a private business out there that is 3.7 trillion dollars in size like our Federal govt.

You may truly mean well but history and reality show that you are very naive when it comes to govt. performance. It truly is sad that you have so much passion for corporate corruption but very little for Public corruption. Where is your outrage over the GAO report yesterday? Why would you propose more govt. spending based upon the GAO report? Until govt. gets its house in order they shouldn't be allowed to grow because that throws good money after bad.
 
social security works fine---LOL!

because gramma gets ;) for her HALF MILLION DOLLARS contributed cuz she died just a little too soon

and her granddaughter with downs goes to THE VILLAGE

if social security is so ;) then why does OBAMA'S OWN DEBT COMMISSION call for such draconian FIX

Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations | TPMDC

raise the retirement age, cut benefits, up the pay-in, raise the income cap---ALL OF EM are required to REPAIR that which is so rosy

it appears our cartoon correspondents, connoisseurs of comedy central, once again don't know what they're talking about

oh well
 
no big deal---just get back the TWO TRIL

LOL!

you don't know what you're talking about

read em and weep...

Just facts.com

* As of December 31, 2010, the U.S. government owes $2.6 trillion to the Social Security Trust Fund. This equates to $8,500 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States or $22,269 per household.[252] [253] [254]

* The Social Security program is projected to start drawing money from the trust fund in 2010, 2011, and then every year from 2015 thereafter until trust fund exhaustion in 2037.[255] [256] [257]

ricksfolly
 
Of course there is corruption in the private sector but you have a choice whether or not to buy a house, whether or not to invest in Wall Street, but there isn't a private business out there there forces you to buy their services nor is there a private business out there that is 3.7 trillion dollars in size like our Federal govt.

You may truly mean well but history and reality show that you are very naive when it comes to govt. performance. It truly is sad that you have so much passion for corporate corruption but very little for Public corruption. Where is your outrage over the GAO report yesterday? Why would you propose more govt. spending based upon the GAO report? Until govt. gets its house in order they shouldn't be allowed to grow because that throws good money after bad.

Again, if we use your reasoning, we have no place for the private sector. it's your reasoning, not mine. ;)
 
read em and weep

sure, the two trillion---no big deal---is in the LOCK BOX

LOL!

the eye popping recommendations of obama's OWN debt commission:

Index the retirement age to longevity -- i.e., increase the retirement age to qualify for Social Security -- to age 69 by 2075.

Index Social Security yearly increases to a lower inflation rate, which will generally mean lower cost of living increases and less money per average recipient.

"Increase progressivity of benefit formula" -- i.e., reduce benefits by 2050 for middle, and, especially, higher earners, relative to current benefits.

Increase the Social Security contribution ceiling: while people only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of their wages today, that's only about 86% of the total potentially taxable wages. The co-chairs suggest raising the ceiling to capture 90% of wages.

Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations | TPMDC

a program---especially one of soc sec's magnitude---that can't keep its fundamental promises is a FAILURE
 
Back
Top Bottom