• 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!

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

Well look there, the total number of employed has continued to increase and currently sits about SIX MILLION above the point when Obama took office.

US Employment and Jobs | Department of Numbers

Yep, you are right, 6 million more people working today than when Obama took office, not the 10 million claimed and at a cost of 7.6 trillion added to the debt. Interesting however even with population growth and a recession that number is just 2 million more than when the recession began. In addition the number of part time workers because of economic reasons continues to be a problem you and others refuse to address just like you cannot admit you have been indoctrinated in a failed liberal ideology where feelings trump actual results and data plus the reality that you truly don't understand how our economy works.
 
I posted an article from CNN Money and you picked out BOA ignoring the fact that others were mentioned as well. If one bank was the only bank still shows that the crisis wasn't national in scale but rather still not what you and others want to claim. What TARP did was reward bad behavior but it is credited with saving the banks and the economy, nothing that Obama did. I wasn't for TARP as I understand with poor choices should come failure.

It wasn't just BoA or JPM. All the big boys got huge loans from Uncle Fed, and those that didn't take loans had ready credit available at any time, which allowed them to make different choices. If GS (which also took massive loans from Uncle Fed) didn't know at any time they could run to the Fed window with toilet paper for collateral and get all the short term money they needed, they'd have had to raise much more short term capital to cover unanticipated shortfalls. As is they could be quite aggressive because the Fed had their back, and would step in and bail them out immediately if there was any run. Further, the Fed short term programs in the $trillions just absolutely rescued the entire system. Without it even the "healthy" firms just couldn't have survived the uncertainty and the locking up of credit. It was just a massive, unprecedented bailout of the big banks by Uncle Fed. $Trillions....

But the bottom line is you're focusing on a $700 billion TARP program and pretending that an at LEAST $8,000 billion program by the Fed didn't exist.
 
It wasn't just BoA or JPM. All the big boys got huge loans from Uncle Fed, and those that didn't take loans had ready credit available at any time, which allowed them to make different choices. If GS (which also took massive loans from Uncle Fed) didn't know at any time they could run to the Fed window with toilet paper for collateral and get all the short term money they needed, they'd have had to raise much more short term capital to cover unanticipated shortfalls. As is they could be quite aggressive because the Fed had their back, and would step in and bail them out immediately if there was any run. Further, the Fed short term programs in the $trillions just absolutely rescued the entire system. Without it even the "healthy" firms just couldn't have survived the uncertainty and the locking up of credit. It was just a massive, unprecedented bailout of the big banks by Uncle Fed. $Trillions....

But the bottom line is you're focusing on a $700 billion TARP program and pretending that an at LEAST $8,000 billion program by the Fed didn't exist.

Yes, and the big boys paid back the loans quickly, what did Obama do with the repayment? I know quite well that the Fed spent a lot of money rewarding bad behavior and continue to do that.
 
Well, in fairness, they are completely wrong about a lot of other stuff too.

Maybe, maybe not. Just because you or someone doesn't like it doesn't make it wrong. And few here are really Constitutional scholars.
 
I would suggest that you take a course in American Government, specifically in regards to the Separation of Powers and how the US Supreme Court is supposed to work. It's not that we predicted wrong, it's that five of the nine justices acted as activist judges. They legislated from the bench. What they are supposed to do is interpret the constitutionality of a law based on how it is written....not interpret it according to what they would like it to say. The US Spreme Court is of the Judicial branch. If they want to legislate, they should resign from the court and run for congress.

I have taken a course which is why I know you get a lot wrong. I was a political Science minor, making be just qualified enough to know how little most know about the Constitution. Too often you guys act like we stayed with the articles of confederation. We didn't. And tenth Amendment made a huge move by removing the word expressly concerning state rights. There is plenty of wiggle room in there to allow federal government to do things like they have done, which is why your side loses these cases.
 
I have taken a course which is why I know you get a lot wrong. I was a political Science minor, making be just qualified enough to know how little most know about the Constitution. Too often you guys act like we stayed with the articles of confederation. We didn't. And tenth Amendment made a huge move by removing the word expressly concerning state rights. There is plenty of wiggle room in there to allow federal government to do things like they have done, which is why your side loses these cases.

"your side"? Exactly what side is that and what side are you on, the massive federal govt. side where personal responsibility issues are delegated to the bureaucrats in D.C. OR the side that our Founders were on where the power was left closest to the people which are at the state level?

Seems that far too many want the Federal Govt. and the courts to legislate that which are state issues like ACA, Same sex marriage, so what is next? What said are you on?
 
I have taken a course which is why I know you get a lot wrong. I was a political Science minor, making be just qualified enough to know how little most know about the Constitution. Too often you guys act like we stayed with the articles of confederation. We didn't. And tenth Amendment made a huge move by removing the word expressly concerning state rights. There is plenty of wiggle room in there to allow federal government to do things like they have done, which is why your side loses these cases.

"your side"? Exactly what side is that and what side are you on, the massive federal govt. side where personal responsibility issues are delegated to the bureaucrats in D.C. OR the side that our Founders were on where the power was left closest to the people which are at the state level?

Seems that far too many want the Federal Govt. and the courts to legislate that which are state issues like ACA, Same sex marriage, so what is next? What said are you on?
 
"your side"? Exactly what side is that and what side are you on, the massive federal govt. side where personal responsibility issues are delegated to the bureaucrats in D.C. OR the side that our Founders were on where the power was left closest to the people which are at the state level?

Seems that far too many want the Federal Govt. and the courts to legislate that which are state issues like ACA, Same sex marriage, so what is next? What said are you on?

The side that constantly misreads how the court will rule, largely due to a lack of knowledge.

The Courts didn't legislate any of that. They ruled on the law. I'm on the side of the law and our system.
 
The side that constantly misreads how the court will rule, largely due to a lack of knowledge.

The Courts didn't legislate any of that. They ruled on the law. I'm on the side of the law and our system.

So what you are saying is that you support an activist court that rules against States' rights issues?
 
So what you are saying is that you support an activist court that rules against States' rights issues?

No, I support a court that follows the law. And that is what they did. You calling it activist doesn't make activist.
 
The side that constantly misreads how the court will rule, largely due to a lack of knowledge.

The Courts didn't legislate any of that. They ruled on the law. I'm on the side of the law and our system.

Decided to turn over a new leaf then.
 
No, I support a court that follows the law. And that is what they did. You calling it activist doesn't make activist.

And exactly what law is that? You believe in the Constitution so show me where marriage and Healthcare are mentioned?
 
And exactly what law is that? You believe in the Constitution so show me where marriage and Healthcare are mentioned?

Show me where the Air Force is mentioned in the Constitution

Some Americans think the "marriage" problem is covered without a need for an explicit statement, just as the Air Force is not mentioned in the Constitution
US Constitution - 5th and 14th Amendments

The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the Federal Government not deprive individuals of "life, liberty, or property," without due process of the law and an implicit guarantee that each person receive equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual's rights of due process and equal protection.
 
Show me where the Air Force is mentioned in the Constitution

Some Americans think the "marriage" problem is covered without a need for an explicit statement, just as the Air Force is not mentioned in the Constitution

Oh, stop with this BS. Air Force is part of the Military and according to people like you the Equal Protection Clause can be used to define anything you want it to be and that was never the intent. Marriage was defined by history and administered by the states. Civil Unions have been created but that isn't good enough for radicals.
 
Oh, stop with this BS. Air Force is part of the Military and according to people like you the Equal Protection Clause can be used to define anything you want it to be and that was never the intent. Marriage was defined by history and administered by the states. Civil Unions have been created but that isn't good enough for radicals.

"Marriage was defined by history" - yeah, which history would that be?



Civil unions are not recognised by all government bodies and do not have equal rights and privileges as marriages.

The Constitution says "Army and Navy"

Equal Protection means just what it says. If an individual or group is allowed to act or to be treated in one manner, all other citizens must be treated in the same way.
 
"Marriage was defined by history" - yeah, which history would that be?



Civil unions are not recognised by all government bodies and do not have equal rights and privileges as marriages.

The Constitution says "Army and Navy"

Equal Protection means just what it says. If an individual or group is allowed to act or to be treated in one manner, all other citizens must be treated in the same way.


This argument will continue and eventually you are going to wake up the silent majority this country and aren't going to like the outcome. I stand by my statement and beliefs. I have nothing against gays at all but some traditions should remain as they are. There is absolutely no reason to change the definition of marriage as other options are available.
 
This argument will continue and eventually you are going to wake up the silent majority this country and aren't going to like the outcome. I stand by my statement and beliefs. I have nothing against gays at all but some traditions should remain as they are. There is absolutely no reason to change the definition of marriage as other options are available.

The "silent majority"? Would that be people who hang up their phone if they don't know the caller? You know, the ones who have never answer a pollster's questions. For some reason, the polling companies all show the not so silent majority tend to support same-sex marriage.

Traditions have changed over the years, the modern understanding of opposite sex marriage, the "traditional" kind, has really only existed since the mid-19th Century and only as women gained equal rights was it supported by the legal system.
 
The "silent majority"? Would that be people who hang up their phone if they don't know the caller? You know, the ones who have never answer a pollster's questions. For some reason, the polling companies all show the not so silent majority tend to support same-sex marriage.

Traditions have changed over the years, the modern understanding of opposite sex marriage, the "traditional" kind, has really only existed since the mid-19th Century and only as women gained equal rights was it supported by the legal system.

Traditional vs. Natural Law. I prefer natural law and it is unnatural for two of the same sex individuals to marry and procreate. Roberts got it right and it is quite telling how radicals like you interpret the equal protection law strictly on a personal nature on what you want so in your world if it feels good do it. Marriage is a state issue as the Federal Govt. recognizes civil unions but that isn't good enough for you or others like you. Your opinion noted, I respect it but disagree with it.
 
This argument will continue and eventually you are going to wake up the silent majority this country and aren't going to like the outcome. I stand by my statement and beliefs. I have nothing against gays at all but some traditions should remain as they are. There is absolutely no reason to change the definition of marriage as other options are available.

Those other options really weren't available, except in a limited number of states and even in those states civil unions weren't equivalent to marriage. Those other options could have been available, but my own state's Constitutional amendment for example not only banned SSM in Tennessee but said that any such marriage in any other state was void in the state. Many states such as adjoining Virginia's banned civil unions, and any "union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
 
Those other options really weren't available, except in a limited number of states and even in those states civil unions weren't equivalent to marriage. Those other options could have been available, but my own state's Constitutional amendment for example not only banned SSM in Tennessee but said that any such marriage in any other state was void in the state. Many states such as adjoining Virginia's banned civil unions, and any "union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

What is marriage? Why is it so important for two same sex individuals to have the term marriage to define their relationship? A civil union works quite well but malcontents have to change history and precedence.

My company recognized civil unions, the Federal Govt. recognizes civil unions, raise the issue in your state and get civil unions recognized. Roberts nailed it on this one, this is an issue that never should have gotten to the Supreme Court to let Activist Justices decide. I hardly believe a 5-4 ruling is a ringing endorsement.
 
And exactly what law is that? You believe in the Constitution so show me where marriage and Healthcare are mentioned?

That's the trouble, and why the articles of confederation couldn't stand. There had to be leeway and the 10th amendment iis one place that allows that.
 
That's the trouble, and why the articles of confederation couldn't stand. There had to be leeway and the 10th amendment iis one place that allows that.

And you don't have a problem with the Federal Govt. taking over more and more state responsibility to make us more like let's say Greece??
 
And you don't have a problem with the Federal Govt. taking over more and more state responsibility to make us more like let's say Greece??

Actually we helped Greece along with the housing bubble crash. But, I have no trouble with the federal government handling things too big for states.
 
Back
Top Bottom