scatt
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 4,721
- Reaction score
- 509
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Lied?
You said it was not a legal question, then said it was a legal question. Try and keep up.
Lied?
You said it was not a legal question, then said it was a legal question. Try and keep up.
Perhaps you can quote me on that?
Simply a question arising from your statement. No legal opinion is necessary as we are not in court.
what the heck does CONSENT have to do with a national program which applies to the citizenry which has been passed by the peoples government and upheld by the judiciary?
Even President Reagan's approval rating was only 50% at this point in his presidency.
http://content.gallup.com/origin/ga...roduction/Cms/POLL/rmgzeqkfc02dn1bv3mnkmw.gif
Except that private insurance had one major difference -- consent.
I know conservatives don't know what's in the Constitution but there's this preamble thingy that gives the reasons for creating the document and along with "provide for the common defense" there's "promote the general welfare" in it. Those are both pretty broad mandates. Article I goes on to give Congress the power to create laws. There's at least as much justification for creating a health care system as there is for creating a standing professional army, navy (but no air force since that's definitely not in there, right?).
Much better than yours. Your numbers above are all wrong and I know why: you didn't go by fiscal years. The first FY of a new president doesn't begin until Oct. 1 not the day he's inaugurated. That would mean that Carter's is only $300B, Reagan $1.9T, Bush I $1.7T, Clinton $1.2T, BushII $6.1T and Obama to date is $6.2T. The grand totals by party comes to $9.7T republicans to $7.7T for democrats. But that's also not really accurate because the interest on previously created debt does eventually show up on later presidents "score card." When the interest of the first term of the two term presidents is removed from the equation then the amounts come to about $7.2T for republicans and $4.2 for dems.
Any response that does not directly address this will be admission of defeat. I dare you to admit defeat.
You want this addressed directly? Sure.
That is true, on January 21, 2001 when Bush took office the debt was 5.7 trillion dollars and on January 21, 2009 when he left office it was 10.6 trillion which is 4.9 trillion. Your bias and ignorance is staggering. Learn how to do research and actually get the data on the links. Getting rather tired of making liberals look foolish only to have actual data ignored trumped by ideology and feelings. It is also quite interesting that Bush didn't have a budget for 2009 until Obama signed it in March. Figures don't lie but liars do figure.
Yes, got it, provide and promote mean exactly the same thing, brilliant. Our Founders got it, when will you
You stiil haven't provided us with the article and clause in the Constitution which prohibits Congress from creating a government funded health care system.
The SCOTUS ruling said PPACA was unconstitutional on commerce clause grounds.
Well, then the PPACA must not exist anymore.
but since it is not a tax, the case can go forward, but because it is a tax, congress has the power to tax.
It's not a tax but it is a tax?
BTW, did you ever see my question to you on "consent?"
You left out the directly addressing it part. I appreciate you admitting defeat.
Did you not read the case?
Roberts first claims the law is unconstitutional on the commerce clause question. Roberts then claimed that because it is not a tax the case can go forward (tax cases have to happen only after someone has paid the tax), he then said that because this is a tax, and that congress has taxing powers, the law is constitutional.
You never explained the relevance of your CONSENT comments. And still have not done so rejecting actual debate in favor of childish attacks.
Just like I said. You used the false method rightwing method of inauguration dates not the actual method the the nation uses in its accounting system and then you charge me with bias? That's the famous rightwing symptom called "projection." The really funny thing is how you all always think you're clever and no one will check your claims out. When we do and discover the deception then you pull the silliness that you did above. It's so ridiculously predictable.
What Roberts wrote was a single opinion on the commerce clause issue.
Since he did not join the other 4 rightwing justices in their opinion that the law was unconstitutional on the commerce clause basis it was irrelevant as far as a ruling goes.
As for the question about consent, you made a comment (I think it was to "haymarket") to the effect that people were being forced to pay for health insurance without their consent and I pointed out that no one asked my consent to pay for their medical bills when they didn't buy insurance or bought inadequate insurance and ended up being unable to pay their bills thus passing their medical expenses on to people who did buy insurance or to the government for their care.
You stiil haven't provided us with the article and clause in the Constitution which prohibits Congress from creating a government funded health care system. You've proved yet again that the rightwing not only doesn't know what's in the Constitution it also doesn't know what not in it.
The founders would role over in their graves if they knew the size and scope our defense spending today. Most of them didn't even like the idea of a standing army and preferred the country be defended by citizen militias.