Page 10 of 29 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 288

Thread: House blocks funding for health care law

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by whysoserious View Post
    Easy to say while you are drinking clean water. Explain, please, how the EPA is unconstitutional?
    Easy to say when I can get people to give me clean water without the EPA. :p

    EPA is unconstitutional because the fed can only regulate when it is settling disputes among states or among nations.

    Furthermore, the EPA was passed using an executive order, an unlawful use of that power.

    There is conservative, and then there is bat **** crazy conservative. Most of us think of danarhea as the former and not the latter.
    You really proving yourself right with that" bat ****ing crazy" stuff. I'll be sure to take note that supporting things like the EPA is now a conservative view point, since, well, its not.
    Last edited by Henrin; 02-20-11 at 04:28 AM.

  2. #92
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    EPA is unconstitutional because the fed can only regulate when it is settling disputes among states or among nations.
    In what way was this determined under the rule of law in this country?

    I'll be sure to take note that supporting things like the EPA is now a conservative view point, since, well, its not.
    Perhaps you are right, I've never heard of any conservative effort for abolishing the EPA. Please post a link to your documention of this. Thanks!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #93
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    In what way was this determined under the rule of law in this country?



    Perhaps you are right, I've never heard of any conservative effort for abolishing the EPA. Please post a link to your documention of this. Thanks!
    Maybe some of those people don't remember, but Barry Goldwater was quite the environmentalist.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  4. #94
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Maybe some of those people don't remember, but Barry Goldwater was quite the environmentalist.
    Actually, my previous post didn't go far enough. There was an excellent article written about Goldwater called The Skeptical Environmentalist, which took a close look at his conflict between environmentalism and his distrust of the Government, which shows that he was a very complex man, and a great critical thinker. In the end, Goldwater accepted environmentalism.

    In addition, should we call environmentalism Conservative? Actually, we can. The EPA was founded by Richard Nixon, many evangelical Christians believe that the Earth is God's creation, and that man is charged with keeping it pristine if he loves and respects God, and don't forget this quote from Ronald Reagan:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan
    What is a conservative after all but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live... And we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live—our countryside, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it
    And how about that all-American organization, known as the Boy Scouts of America, whose members learned and then lived civic responsibility, which also included environmental responsibility?

    But, of course, there are some in this forum who believe the Conservatism stands for none of this, and whose arguments consists of questioning the Conservative credentials of those who are able to read at a high school level or better. Who am I to argue with them? They are right. Ronald Reagan was a flaming Liberal. [/sarcasm]



    I agree wholeheartedly with keeping the EPA. After all, I have seen the results of human nature, and it isn't pretty at all.
    Last edited by danarhea; 02-20-11 at 05:22 AM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  5. #95
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Notice that each of those news sites are liberal news sites....
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    A tax cut from approx. 80% for the top tax rate (as it was during the 50 year period when we had a progressive tax) to 30% is regressive no matter how you spin it. And that doesn't even include all the "legal" loopholes that can be used to further reduce the 30% to much less down to zero in some cases. We also learned (painfully) that the trickle down theory only worked for those at the top, and left the rest of us with more National debt to have to pay for, thereby shifing the tax burden more to the middle class. The tax cuts to to the wealthy resulted in a bubble followed by a recession (both times), with the rich growing richer and the middle class growing poorer.
    Just because an extreme wartime tax rate of 91% for the great depression and during WW II never got reduced after the war, in no way means you can try to SPIN the eventual reduction as a regressive tax cut. ****ing semantics.

    The lower rate for the wealthy meant that they kept more money and as their savings rater is much higher than lower income folks, that did translate directly to investment creating growth. It worked. Other factors, since the investment rate is not the only factor, caused problems for growth. We did have the longest boom up til the housing bubble, and that can partially be attributed to lower rates for the wealthy.

    The fact that we have a higher national debt is due to uncontrolled spending, dominated by entitlements.

    If what you say is true about tax reductions spurring investment, why isn't our economy thriving after a decade of these tax cuts enjoyed by the wealthy?
    It is not the only factor. Truth is we lost industry sectors to globalization and so have a high unemployment with very slow recovery. Higher tax rates won't solve that problem.



    I am suggesting moving them closer to where they were during the 50 year period in our history when we had a progressive tax, and the strongest middle class in our history.
    We should have no income tax. Government stops all programs including defense and all entitlements.


    It is part of our Constitution to promote the welfare of the people.
    Debatable.

    Where in the Constitution is the part where the rich should thrive on the backs of the middle class?
    ?????!!!!!!!! How in hell is a lower tax rate for the wealthy translate into them thriving on the backs of the middle class??? They are already paying a higher rate!

    We do if we cut the wasteful spending in our various departments including the military, we currently spend more for our military than the rest of the world, combined. And we may have to reconsider wars for nation building around the world, also something not required by the Constitution, and the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes.
    I agree we need to cut across the board, including both military and entitlements. How the hell can you make the claim that a 90% tax rate is a "fair" tax rate? The wealthy don't use those services.

    And where did the debt come from? Trillions of it are from nation building wars of choice and tax cuts for the wealthy. And the same party that (talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk) is the party that spent the money. Obama has proposed a 1.1 trillion dollar reduction in spending over a 10 year period. Please link me to a GOP budget proposal in the last decade which cut spending as much.
    Trillions? Not true. Debt does not come from tax cuts. It comes from overspending and 64% of our federal spending in entitlements. We should drop them all. People are responsible for taking care of themselves and not sucking of the government teat. We need to stop promoting a culture of dependency.

    ****ing liberals are assholes.

  7. #97
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Just because an extreme wartime tax rate of 91% for the great depression and during WW II never got reduced after the war, in no way means you can try to SPIN the eventual reduction as a regressive tax cut. ****ing semantics.

    The lower rate for the wealthy meant that they kept more money and as their savings rater is much higher than lower income folks, that did translate directly to investment creating growth. It worked. Other factors, since the investment rate is not the only factor, caused problems for growth. We did have the longest boom up til the housing bubble, and that can partially be attributed to lower rates for the wealthy.

    The fact that we have a higher national debt is due to uncontrolled spending, dominated by entitlements.



    It is not the only factor. Truth is we lost industry sectors to globalization and so have a high unemployment with very slow recovery. Higher tax rates won't solve that problem.





    We should have no income tax. Government stops all programs including defense and all entitlements.




    Debatable.



    ?????!!!!!!!! How in hell is a lower tax rate for the wealthy translate into them thriving on the backs of the middle class??? They are already paying a higher rate!



    I agree we need to cut across the board, including both military and entitlements. How the hell can you make the claim that a 90% tax rate is a "fair" tax rate? The wealthy don't use those services.



    Trillions? Not true. Debt does not come from tax cuts. It comes from overspending and 64% of our federal spending in entitlements. We should drop them all. People are responsible for taking care of themselves and not sucking of the government teat. We need to stop promoting a culture of dependency.

    ****ing liberals are assholes.
    Wartime like now? The difference is that the public at the time wasn't brainwashed by Glenn Beck and realized that taxing the rich (who make tons of freaking money and won't even come close to strugging even at a 90% tax rate) is best for the country!

    Again, I am not sure if you realize this, but tax cuts do cause debts. Let me explain the math (it's really easy):

    Revenues - Expenditures = Profit/Loss.

    So, as you can see, profit/loss are quite heavily dependent on revenues. Where do you get your info from?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Easy to say when I can get people to give me clean water without the EPA. :p

    EPA is unconstitutional because the fed can only regulate when it is settling disputes among states or among nations.

    Furthermore, the EPA was passed using an executive order, an unlawful use of that power.



    You really proving yourself right with that" bat ****ing crazy" stuff. I'll be sure to take note that supporting things like the EPA is now a conservative view point, since, well, its not.
    Let me guess, you are an arm-chair lawyer? Do you have a law degree or study the law at all? Constitutionality is actually a quite complicated subject and, despite what Mr. Limbaugh says, it is most likely not even close to that simple.
    Last edited by whysoserious; 02-20-11 at 10:06 AM.

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by whysoserious View Post
    Wartime like now? The difference is that the public at the time wasn't brainwashed by Glenn Beck and realized that taxing the rich (who make tons of freaking money and won't even come close to strugging even at a 90% tax rate) is best for the country!

    Again, I am not sure if you realize this, but tax cuts do cause debts. Let me explain the math (it's really easy):

    Revenues - Expenditures = Profit/Loss.

    So, as you can see, profit/loss are quite heavily dependent on revenues. Where do you get your info from?



    Let me guess, you are an arm-chair lawyer? Do you have a law degree or study the law at all? Constitutionality is actually a quite complicated subject and, despite what Mr. Limbaugh says, it is most likely not even close to that simple.
    This is the age old battle between the patricians and the plebians. In a full throated democracy, rule by the masses, the plebians will still everything from the patricians and call it "fair". It will drive away investment and hurt our private economy. Look at what is happening in California as an example. Lots of businesses leaving.

    We don't need to solve the problem of uncontrolled spending by raising taxes; we need to stop uncontrolled spending.

  9. #99
    User Bullshytz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Last Seen
    05-18-11 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    56

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    We don't need to solve the problem of uncontrolled spending by raising taxes; we need to stop uncontrolled spending.
    We need to get rid of all taxes N' eliminate our imaginary money system.
    I know that might sound stupid but my imaginary friend told me to write that.

    I will DISAGREE with you not becuz I hate you but becus it's FUN.

    If I'm wrong, let me know why?
    I'm not afraid to admit my mistakes.


  10. #100
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: House blocks funding for health care law

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Seems pretty clear they don't want it defunded however.
    as a person who has linked a number of polls myself, i cannot and WILL NOT dispute your numbers

    arguing polls is even less productive than the endless back and forth, naturally derailing detours, into sources

    which is why i stick to nyt, wapo, cnn, cbs, abc, reuters, ap, ft, politico...

    when talking to libs, which is what i do, it is sometimes very useful to use a source like kos or huffpo or msnbc or tpm...

    cuz if a guy/gal like chrissy matthews says obama needs a birth certificate...

    i could, of course, show you a number of polls showing a strong plurality of americans want obamacare REPEALED

    anyway, i think it is NOT SPIN to note---polls this far out, ie, polls this far away from being held to actual account by real election results, are certainly far less sourceworthy than those immediately preceding a plebiscite

    especially when they are saying that americans want a bill repealed but not defunded

Page 10 of 29 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •