• 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

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.


Everyone participates in the health market because the health market does not respond to ordinary market forces. Everyone has a need for medical services at some point in their life and the overwhelming majority of individuals can not afford the actual cost associated with most medical care. It requires an odd interpretation for someone to try and claim that "cancer" or "heart disease" is the sole responsibility of the individual when the society also faces tremendous costs when that individual can not afford the medical care necessary to deal with their issue.


You keep refining what you said, and you are still arriving at the same conclusion: The government must pay individuals to get something that being alive requires. What are you list of required subsidies all should receive because it's the Federal governments responsibility to provide?
 
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.

I don't disagree with you on that point though and haven't been disputing that. But in the sense that I have really no control over how my money has been spent, it's all the same for me, regardless of how monies might be allocated, in the various forms, I contribute substantial money to the Feds, and it's often used in ways that I don't like. If you're going to oppose 700 million dollars taken from Medicare for the purpose I have already posted, then you'd best get going, they're working on it already.
 
Another one who can't follow a conversation.

Conservative wrote a post saying that he objected to taxes being pooled in a general fund rather than targeted to pay for programs the taxes were meant to fund...

You followed by asking him if he was opposed to all taxes.

In summation: You weren't following what Conservative said.
 
I don't disagree with you on that point though and haven't been disputing that. But in the sense that I have really no control over how my money has been spent, it's all the same for me, regardless of how monies might be allocated, in the various forms, I contribute substantial money to the Feds, and it's often used in ways that I don't like. If you're going to oppose 700 million dollars taken from Medicare for the purpose I have already posted, then you'd best get going, they're working on it already.

They are working on it? How do you know that or is this some rumor?
 
You keep refining what you said, and you are still arriving at the same conclusion: The government must pay individuals to get something that being alive requires. What are you list of required subsidies all should receive because it's the Federal governments responsibility to provide?

Well, before too long, such a subsidy will be required - essentially a guaranteed salary for everyone. Within the next 30-40 years, roughly HALF of all jobs available today will be obsolete because of computers and robots. At that point, you really are staring at a bunch of no-win situations. Either one half of the population lives without a salary and you hope that they die without creating too much chaos for society. Or you divide the income of the remaining jobs such that individuals who are not employed will still be able to afford necessities.
 
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.

Medicare and Medicaid are run by the Federal Government. Setting national standards for hospitals and medical care are influenced by the Federal Government. There is certainly a role to be played by both the State and the Federal Government.

As for State legislatures, we shouldn't punish someone just because they live in a State like Kansas where the Governor is running it into the ground because he is trying to pursue a Conservative's ideal for how Government should be run.
 
Medicare and Medicaid are run by the Federal Government. Setting national standards for hospitals and medical care are influenced by the Federal Government. There is certainly a role to be played by both the State and the Federal Government.

As for State legislatures, we shouldn't punish someone just because they live in a State like Kansas where the Governor is running it into the ground because he is trying to pursue a Conservative's ideal for how Government should be run.

Yes they are and they are inefficient and broke. I find it interesting that you have faith in a government that has created an 18.2 TRILLION dollar debt and are willing to give them more power. This is and always will be a state responsibility. our Founders understood that a successful democracy is putting power closest to the people, not in D.C.

Conservative principles are those that accept personal responsibility something apparently you don't understand. For some reason you believe the taxpayer should take on that responsibility for you, why?
 
Plenty of Republicans and conservatives on this board think SCOTUS shouldn't be taking up same-sex marriage cases, but Obama says something similar and he's a KING!
 
Plenty of Republicans and conservatives on this board think SCOTUS shouldn't be taking up same-sex marriage cases, but Obama says something similar and he's a KING!

Who? Are you sure you aren't confusing "shouldn't be taking up" with "hope they rule the way I want"?
 
Who? Are you sure you aren't confusing "shouldn't be taking up" with "hope they rule the way I want"?
No, there are plenty suggesting that marriage is a state issue and the Feds have no business being involved.
 
I find it interesting that you have faith in a government that has created an 18.2 TRILLION dollar debt and are willing to give them more power.

The size of the US Debt does not concern me that much because of the facts that our economy is still the largest in the world, the fact that our GDP-to-Debt ratio is relatively healthy when compared to other industrialized nations, and the fact that the US Dollar is still a world reserve currency.

Conservative principles are those that accept personal responsibility something apparently you don't understand. For some reason you believe the taxpayer should take on that responsibility for you, why?

And I get the notion of personal responsibility. I also understand the benefits of recognizing that our society is a collection of individual actors and individuals actors, especially when they are each pursuing their own best interests, will not obtain the best outcome for society. As such, a nationally recognized force that is capable of making decisions to help guide the group as a whole should be given authority to act in certain areas and under certain restrictions.
 
MrT;1064702185]The size of the US Debt does not concern me that much because of the facts that our economy is still the largest in the world, the fact that our GDP-to-Debt ratio is relatively healthy when compared to other industrialized nations, and the fact that the US Dollar is still a world reserve currency.

Since government spending is a small part of GDP why is debt to GDP ratio important to you? Do you understand debt service? Think we pay debt service on the ratio? No, we pay debt service on the actual dollars and right now debt service is the fourth largest budget item. Imagine what that will be with more normal interest rates? Of course you don't care about debt service because you personally don't feel it and therein lies part of the problem. What could we do with the extra 250 billion a year?

And I get the notion of personal responsibility. I also understand the benefits of recognizing that our society is a collection of individual actors and individuals actors, especially when they are each pursuing their own best interests, will not obtain the best outcome for society. As such, a nationally recognized force that is capable of making decisions to help guide the group as a whole should be given authority to act in certain areas and under certain restrictions.

Yes, that is why MA and Hawaii did their own healthcare law. It meets the requirements of our Founders, it is closest to the people and was supported by the people. You want healthcare get your state to pass a Universal Healthcare Law
 
No, there are plenty suggesting that marriage is a state issue and the Feds have no business being involved.

... which is what they are hoping the SCOTUS rules.
 
Conservative wrote a post saying that he objected to taxes being pooled in a general fund rather than targeted to pay for programs the taxes were meant to fund...

You followed by asking him if he was opposed to all taxes.

In summation: You weren't following what Conservative said.

My comment was directed at his last line in post number six, and not the portion you loosely quoted. Which looks to me to quite well define any tax money. Apparently another poster saw it that way as well.
 
... which is what they are hoping the SCOTUS rules.


Yes, they are hoping the Supreme Court decides they shouldn't be taking up marriage cases because they have no jurisdiction, the state's do.
 
My comment was directed at his last line in post number six, and not the portion you loosely quoted. Which looks to me to quite well define any tax money. Apparently another poster saw it that way as well.

So, like I said, you weren't actually commenting on the totality of Conservative's post, just pulling a line out of context and attacking it.

In context Conservative's final line means that he does not like taxes gathered for Social Security, for instance, going to pay for the EITC. People should know how much of their money is going to wealth redistribution programs by line-item taxing to fund it.
 
So, like I said, you weren't actually commenting on the totality of Conservative's post, just pulling a line out of context and attacking it.

In context Conservative's final line means that he does not like taxes gathered for Social Security, for instance, going to pay for the EITC. People should know how much of their money is going to wealth redistribution programs by line-item taxing to fund it.

Can we also line-item the DOD budget and separately line-item the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
 

Wow, any more leftwing sites to post from? Just another reason to destroy the Unified Budget and put your taxes where they belong FICA funds SS and Medicare and shouldn't be used for anything other than those two issues. People contributed their money into SS and Medicare through payroll taxes. They deserve that those programs promised when created. Those were self funding programs until LBJ put them on budget
 
Can we also line-item the DOD budget and separately line-item the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

Last time I checked, Provide for the Common defense was in the Constitution and thus a requirement of our govt. I find no place where healthcare is listed, marriage, abortion or any other leftwing social issue.
 
Last time I checked, Provide for the Common defense was in the Constitution and thus a requirement of our govt. I find no place where healthcare is listed, marriage, abortion or any other leftwing social issue.

Ok, so line item taxation should only apply to things that you personally want it to. Got it.
 
Ok, so line item taxation should only apply to things that you personally want it to. Got it.

Read the Constitution and learn the role and expenses of the Federal Govt.
 
Well, before too long, such a subsidy will be required - essentially a guaranteed salary for everyone. Within the next 30-40 years, roughly HALF of all jobs available today will be obsolete because of computers and robots. At that point, you really are staring at a bunch of no-win situations. Either one half of the population lives without a salary and you hope that they die without creating too much chaos for society. Or you divide the income of the remaining jobs such that individuals who are not employed will still be able to afford necessities.

Why wait? Nationalize everything now, give every Man/Woman/Child a $22,000 salary and call it a day.
 
Yes, they are hoping the Supreme Court decides they shouldn't be taking up marriage cases because they have no jurisdiction, the state's do.

Nope. They are hoping that the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution the same way they do. After all, they believe that the Constitution is what limits the power of the federal Government and the SCOTUS rules on constitutional matters, so who else would you expect to enforce constitutional limits on Federal power?
 
Back
Top Bottom