Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 186

Thread: What type of tax is this?

  1. #31
    Ayyy!

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    42,252
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    So... everything is both inaction and action.... And my head just exploded.
    Fridays aren't supposed to be like this.

  2. #32
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,799
    Quote Originally Posted by huskrthill View Post
    Fridays aren't supposed to be like this.



    Better?!

  3. #33
    Guest

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    So... everything is both inaction and action.... And my head just exploded.
    June 29, 2012. The day the Cafe achieved Zen.

  4. #34
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Nishioka View Post
    June 29, 2012. The day the Cafe achieved Zen.
    Since he started the thread should we start referring to huskerthill as the Thillai Lama?


  5. #35
    Ayyy!

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    42,252
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    Since he started the thread should we start referring to huskerthill as the Thillai Lama?

    I can't see the picture, but I like llamas.

  6. #36
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,792
    As long as we are discussing constitutional interpretation, and in line with the activity/inactivity question, what do we make of this quote:

    To an economist, perhaps, there is no difference between activity and inactivity; both have measurable economic effects on commerce. But the distinction between doingsomething and doing nothing would not have been lost on the Framers, who were “practical statesmen,” not metaphysical philosophers.
    To what degree should constitutional interpretation be limited to the understanding of economics the Framers in the late 18th century? I think this question has broader implications, too.
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  7. #37
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,799
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    As long as we are discussing constitutional interpretation, and in line with the activity/inactivity question, what do we make of this quote:



    To what degree should constitutional interpretation be limited to the understanding of economics the Framers in the late 18th century? I think this question has broader implications, too.
    I think that was part of the genius of the founders. They knew they didn't know it all and couldn't predict the future with any certainty. So they allowed for a process to make it up as we go! Flexibility for the WIN!

  8. #38
    Ayyy!

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    42,252
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    As long as we are discussing constitutional interpretation, and in line with the activity/inactivity question, what do we make of this quote:



    To what degree should constitutional interpretation be limited to the understanding of economics the Framers in the late 18th century? I think this question has broader implications, too.
    The constitution dealt very little with economics, possibly because those were the types of things best left to states to deal with. I think that still has some merit, but as I mentioned in another thread... states no longer have any power. They're just political subdivisions that exist at the pleasure of the central government.

    Economically or otherwise, I don't think the Framers/Founders ever intended for the states to simply be subservient to the directions of the national government.

  9. #39
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,792
    Quote Originally Posted by huskrthill View Post
    The constitution dealt very little with economics, possibly because those were the types of things best left to states to deal with. I think that still has some merit, but as I mentioned in another thread... states no longer have any power. They're just political subdivisions that exist at the pleasure of the central government.
    I disagree with your rhetoric here. I also disagree with your economic analysis. Our strong national economy is a big reason for our international success. I'd prefer not to go the way of the euro union.

    Economically or otherwise, I don't think the Framers/Founders ever intended for the states to simply be subservient to the directions of the national government.
    Well, they were certainly suppose to be subservient militarily and inter-commercially.

    But, I don't see this whole Obamacare thing, and more broadly the approach to solving the national health problem, as being an attack on the states. It may be an attack on the People (i don't think so), but it's really not usurping powers of the states.
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  10. #40
    Scout Team

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,785
    I think we need to do a couple of pools on this healthcare system.
    1) What year will be the first rate increase?
    I will go with 2015 that should give enough time for people to forget that this was supposed to lower our healthcare rates, and long enough time before the next elections to forget about the tax increase.

    2) What year will the whole healthcare system need a bailout?
    I will go with 2024

  11. #41
    Ayyy!

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    42,252
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    I disagree with your rhetoric here. I also disagree with your economic analysis. Our strong national economy is a big reason for our international success. I'd prefer not to go the way of the euro union.



    Well, they were certainly suppose to be subservient militarily and inter-commercially.

    But, I don't see this whole Obamacare thing, and more broadly the approach to solving the national health problem, as being an attack on the states. It may be an attack on the People (i don't think so), but it's really not usurping powers of the states.
    It's not JUST the Obamacare situation. State power has been gradually diminishing for quite a while, to the point that the 10th Amendment really has no bearing anymore. We should probably re-write a new Constitution that more closely reflects the reality of today, because our existing Constitution, and especially the theories behind its creation and adoption, mean very little now.

  12. #42
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,792
    Quote Originally Posted by huskrthill View Post
    It's not JUST the Obamacare situation. State power has been gradually diminishing for quite a while, to the point that the 10th Amendment really has no bearing anymore. We should probably re-write a new Constitution that more closely reflects the reality of today, because our existing Constitution, and especially the theories behind its creation and adoption, mean very little now.
    I think people take political theories that are pressed today and impose them on our Founders, which were a diverse group of political thinkers.

    But, there may be some merit to rewriting the Constitution... Wasn't it Jefferson who said it should be torn up every 20 years?

    Personally, I don't think it's necessary, and I don't share your doom and gloom assessment of federalism today.
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  13. #43
    Ayyy!

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    42,252
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    I think people take political theories that are pressed today and impose them on our Founders, which were a diverse group of political thinkers.

    But, there may be some merit to rewriting the Constitution... Wasn't it Jefferson who said it should be torn up every 20 years?

    Personally, I don't think it's necessary, and I don't share your doom and gloom assessment of federalism today.
    I agree that people take contemporary political theories (or maybe ideologies) and try to force them on to historical figures. I don't think it's fair to say, for example, that Alexander Hamilton would be a Democrat, or that George Washington would be a Republican, or that George Mason would be a Green. However, I think it's fair to look at issues on a case by case basis, examine historical political writings, and attempt to make reasoned, informed conclusions. And when discussing Constitutional issues, I think that the collective Federalist Papers is the most valuable resource. When I read through those documents, I find a common theme; there were very real concerns that the Federal government would become too powerful at the expense of the states. The Constitution was intended to give the Federal government more power than it had under the Articles of Confederation, and people needed to be convinced that the new Constitution imposed limits on those powers.

    I need to be convinced again, because I see very few, if any, limits to Federal power.

  14. #44
    Husker Fan

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    40,855
    you ain't happy, are you thill?

  15. #45
    Husker Fan

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    40,855
    you have insurance coverage right now, don't ya? if so...what's the problem? You're covered.







Posting Permissions

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