• 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

Read the Constitution and learn the role and expenses of the Federal Govt.

Not at all relevant to the idea of line item taxation, as the constitution does not require it for any government funding.
 
Not at all relevant to the idea of line item taxation, as the constitution does not require it for any government funding.

Never promoted item taxation. You don't seem to understand the concept of funding for Federal Govt. responsibilities, use taxes, and SS/Medicare. FIT funds the Operating expenses of the Govt, Excise taxes were to fund the Interstate Highways and Bridges, FICA(Payroll) taxes fund SS and Medicare. State property taxes fund schools, police, fire. Doesn't appear that you have any idea what taxes you pay and what they fund.
 
No, there are plenty suggesting that marriage is a state issue and the Feds have no business being involved.

Yes, and I agree with them. But what on earth does the question of the Supreme Court's authority to concoct constitutional rights, and then use their concoction to nullify duly enacted state laws, have to do with this? Your president is suggesting the Supreme Court should not decide what an apparently contradictory part of a federal statute means. It's laughable for someone with Obama's contempt for the Constitution and fondness for lawless government even to suggest that another branch is overreaching. He seemed happy enough to have the Court rescue the Obamacare law in Sebelius.
 
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.

Oh for ****s sake get your hypocrisy out of my face, as many times as I've seen you respond to a particular point in some ones post. :roll: if you had followed along in the lengthy conversation I was having with C throughout this thread you'd have seen me also respond to his complaint about taxes collected for one thing being used for another, by pointing out that I don't like it either, as in the case of 700 million dollars in tax money being taken from Medicare to pay to retrain all those Americans that will loose a job over the pos TPP that he supports. You've got issues dude, go bait somebody else, I'm pretty tired of you jumping into my conversations with other people when you don't even know what the **** you're talking about.
 
Oh for ****s sake get your hypocrisy out of my face, as many times as I've seen you respond to a particular point in some ones post. :roll: if you had followed along in the lengthy conversation I was having with C throughout this thread you'd have seen me also respond to his complaint about taxes collected for one thing being used for another, by pointing out that I don't like it either, as in the case of 700 million dollars in tax money being taken from Medicare to pay to retrain all those Americans that will loose a job over the pos TPP that he supports. You've got issues dude, go bait somebody else, I'm pretty tired of you jumping into my conversations with other people when you don't even know what the **** you're talking about.

Wait a minute, what you have posted are leftwing sites making a claim that 700 million was being taken out of Medicare to help fund the Trade bill? There is no evidence or proof that is happening. Until there is a bill you have nothing but more fear mongering from the left.

As for my claim, I am totally against the Unified Budget and want our taxes to fund what they are supposed to fund, period. National defense is paid for out of Federal income taxes
 
Oh for ****s sake get your hypocrisy out of my face, as many times as I've seen you respond to a particular point in some ones post. :roll: if you had followed along in the lengthy conversation I was having with C throughout this thread you'd have seen me also respond to his complaint about taxes collected for one thing being used for another, by pointing out that I don't like it either, as in the case of 700 million dollars in tax money being taken from Medicare to pay to retrain all those Americans that will loose a job over the pos TPP that he supports. You've got issues dude, go bait somebody else, I'm pretty tired of you jumping into my conversations with other people when you don't even know what the **** you're talking about.

You responded to the last sentence which had an entirely different meaning in context. Don't you go cursing me out because you screwed up.
 
Wait a minute, what you have posted are leftwing sites making a claim that 700 million was being taken out of Medicare to help fund the Trade bill? There is no evidence or proof that is happening. Until there is a bill you have nothing but more fear mongering from the left.

As for my claim, I am totally against the Unified Budget and want our taxes to fund what they are supposed to fund, period. National defense is paid for out of Federal income taxes

I already told you I don't have a disagreement with you on your second comment. But my links are not all fear mongering biased cites, check again, they are MSM!!!
 
I already told you I don't have a disagreement with you on your second comment. But my links are not all fear mongering biased cites, check again, they are MSM!!!

They are promoting rumors, there is no bill, and until there is they are rumors, fear mongering rumors which the left thrives on
 
You responded to the last sentence which had an entirely different meaning in context. Don't you go cursing me out because you screwed up.

I didn't screw up you did, because you opened your fat mouth before taking our entire conversation in context buddy boy, hear??
 
They are promoting rumors, there is no bill, and until there is they are rumors, fear mongering rumors which the left thrives on

You didn't even read them, good god, both parties are working this out as we speak, wtf is wrong with you??
 
Never promoted item taxation. You don't seem to understand the concept of funding for Federal Govt. responsibilities, use taxes, and SS/Medicare. FIT funds the Operating expenses of the Govt, Excise taxes were to fund the Interstate Highways and Bridges, FICA(Payroll) taxes fund SS and Medicare. State property taxes fund schools, police, fire. Doesn't appear that you have any idea what taxes you pay and what they fund.

line item taxation is what the conversation was about....
 
Yes, and I agree with them. But what on earth does the question of the Supreme Court's authority to concoct constitutional rights, and then use their concoction to nullify duly enacted state laws, have to do with this? Your president is suggesting the Supreme Court should not decide what an apparently contradictory part of a federal statute means. It's laughable for someone with Obama's contempt for the Constitution and fondness for lawless government even to suggest that another branch is overreaching. He seemed happy enough to have the Court rescue the Obamacare law in Sebelius.

He was saying this was an easy decision that shouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court.
 
You didn't even read them, good god, both parties are working this out as we speak, wtf is wrong with you??

What is wrong with me is that I deal in facts, not rumor. Until there is a bill it is a rumor. It is hard to get blood out of a turnip as Medicare is broke with trillions in unfunded liabilities so where is the money going to come from?
 
line item taxation is what the conversation was about....

No, it is about the unified budget and not using tax dollars designated for another purpose. Line item taxation was never the issue raised by me.
 
He was saying this was an easy decision that shouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court.

The lower courts disagreed and that is what the Supreme Court is there to decide
 
He was saying this was an easy decision that shouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court.

Since he has proven he knows nothing of constitutional law then he would be wrong in this case as well.
had the 6th court upheld the proper ruling then we wouldn't be here and the SC would have declined to hear the appeal more than likely.
 
The lower courts disagreed and that is what the Supreme Court is there to decide

Lots of conservatives think upholding a state's right to define marriage was the correct decision and that it should have been decided that way by lower courts and stayed there.

I'm agreeing with you. This is what the Supreme Court is there to decide. I'm just pointing out that Obama expressing his view of the case is not him believing he is a "King," because that's ****ing stupid.
 
I didn't screw up you did, because you opened your fat mouth before taking our entire conversation in context buddy boy, hear??

Your first post in the thread was a response to an out of context sentence in a post to a member that was not you. There was no bigger conversation to put your dumb comment in context. You stripped out the context. You screwed up. Good day sir.



I said good day, sir.
 
What is wrong with me is that I deal in facts, not rumor. Until there is a bill it is a rumor. It is hard to get blood out of a turnip as Medicare is broke with trillions in unfunded liabilities so where is the money going to come from?

That makes no sense whatsoever, you want to wait until this legislation passes to oppose it. :doh

.........A measure to extend and increase the government's Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of trade deals. The measure, introduced by Rep. David Reichert (R-Wash.), proposes covering some of the $2.7-billion cost of the extension by slicing $700 million out of doctor and hospital reimbursements for Medicare.


Congress plots to pay for a trade deal by raiding Medicare - LA Times

Seems to me that your time to oppose this would be now. But as I demonstrated early on. It's only sometimes that you oppose tax dollars collected for one purpose being used for something else.
 
Your first post in the thread was a response to an out of context sentence in a post to a member that was not you. There was no bigger conversation to put your dumb comment in context. You stripped out the context. You screwed up. Good day sir.



I said good day, sir.

I think I basically told you that already, lol.
 
That makes no sense whatsoever, you want to wait until this legislation passes to oppose it. :doh

.........A measure to extend and increase the government's Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of trade deals. The measure, introduced by Rep. David Reichert (R-Wash.), proposes covering some of the $2.7-billion cost of the extension by slicing $700 million out of doctor and hospital reimbursements for Medicare.


Congress plots to pay for a trade deal by raiding Medicare - LA Times

Seems to me that your time to oppose this would be now. But as I demonstrated early on. It's only sometimes that you oppose tax dollars collected for one purpose being used for something else.

No, I want to see a bill before it is voted upon. Since Medicare is on budget how do you know that it is Medicare funds being robbed? Don't really care what was proposed but rather what the bill says.
 
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.



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?

That would be an argument about opinion since health care isn't a right. I think we would have to agree to disagree on that subject.
 
That makes no sense whatsoever, you want to wait until this legislation passes to oppose it. :doh

.........A measure to extend and increase the government's Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of trade deals. The measure, introduced by Rep. David Reichert (R-Wash.), proposes covering some of the $2.7-billion cost of the extension by slicing $700 million out of doctor and hospital reimbursements for Medicare.


Congress plots to pay for a trade deal by raiding Medicare - LA Times

Seems to me that your time to oppose this would be now. But as I demonstrated early on. It's only sometimes that you oppose tax dollars collected for one purpose being used for something else.

Did you bother to read the article or just the headlines?

It's proper to place this situation in the context of Washington fiscal politics. The Medicare cut is slated to go into effect in fiscal 2024, which gives it the flavor of a budget gimmick. The chances are good that lawmakers will revisit the cut long before it goes into effect--and the budget landscape a decade from now is certain to look very different from today's. The $700 million cut is the equivalent of about 14 hundredths of one percent of Medicare's budget today ($500 billion).
 
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.

I would have hoped you were better at nuances.
 
Back
Top Bottom