Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 186

Thread: What type of tax is this?

  1. #41
    Ayyy!
    huskrthill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    37,210
    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.

  2. #42
    All Legend

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    16,004
    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.”

  3. #43
    Ayyy!
    huskrthill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    37,210
    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.

  4. #44
    you ain't happy, are you thill?

  5. #45
    you have insurance coverage right now, don't ya? if so...what's the problem? You're covered.

  6. #46
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,841
    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.

    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.

    If I recall correctly some of them called for that very thing. They weren't, as I know you know, a homogeneous group who all felt exactly the same way about everything.

  7. #47
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,841
    Quote Originally Posted by ShuckIt View Post
    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
    Your predictions are somewhat known to be less than accurate.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by huskrthill View Post
    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.
    What about the holding that the federal government cannot threaten to pull all Medicare funding if the states do not agree to the expanded Medicare eligibility criteria. All that the federal government can withhold are the funds related to that expanded eligibility. That holding represented the very first time that the SC had imposed limits on Congress' power to attach strings to money being provided to the states via the Spending Clause.

    The point I am trying to make here is that change may not come fast enough for you in regards to federalism, but this opinion may very well mark the high water mark of federal power. The tide has been stemmed, and this opinion reflects that five justices are inclined to begin allocating power back to the states.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  9. #49
    Ayyy!
    huskrthill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    37,210
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    What about the holding that the federal government cannot threaten to pull all Medicare funding if the states do not agree to the expanded Medicare eligibility criteria. All that the federal government can withhold are the funds related to that expanded eligibility. That holding represented the very first time that the SC had imposed limits on Congress' power to attach strings to money being provided to the states via the Spending Clause.
    I'll take the little victories, but still be vocal about the defeats. I think it's absurd that states have to suck at the federal government teat for those funds anyway. In the end, it's not really going to make a whole lot of difference because we'll just go further into debt at the federal level.

    The point I am trying to make here is that change may not come fast enough for you in regards to federalism, but this opinion may very well mark the high water mark of federal power. The tide has been stemmed, and this opinion reflects that five justices are inclined to begin allocating power back to the states.
    That may be the case with a (relatively) conservative court, but that could easily change with a second Obama term. Then again, a Romney term could result in a court that is loaded with "conservative" (I don't say that mockingly) justices.

    I guess we'll wait and see. You're right, though. Change won't come fast enough. The types of changes that are necessary - such as repealing the 17th Amendment - are probably too drastic to occur in my lifetime.

  10. #50
    Ayyy!
    huskrthill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    37,210
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    If I recall correctly some of them called for that very thing. They weren't, as I know you know, a homogeneous group who all felt exactly the same way about everything.
    I think you may be recalling incorrectly. Those that were for "big government" were among those that wrote the Federalist Papers, including Hamilton.

  11. #51
    Ayyy!
    huskrthill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    37,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskers57 View Post
    you ain't happy, are you thill?
    Happy with life, yes. Happy with this decision, no.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huskers57 View Post
    you have insurance coverage right now, don't ya? if so...what's the problem? You're covered.
    Because it's not about just me.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by huskrthill View Post
    Happy with this decision, no.
    ha. get over the wallowing self-pity. YOU CHAMPIONED ROBERTS AS CJ...why don't you back him through thick and thin?

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by huskrthill View Post
    I'll take the little victories, but still be vocal about the defeats. I think it's absurd that states have to suck at the federal government teat for those funds anyway. In the end, it's not really going to make a whole lot of difference because we'll just go further into debt at the federal level.



    That may be the case with a (relatively) conservative court, but that could easily change with a second Obama term. Then again, a Romney term could result in a court that is loaded with "conservative" (I don't say that mockingly) justices.

    I guess we'll wait and see. You're right, though. Change won't come fast enough. The types of changes that are necessary - such as repealing the 17th Amendment - are probably too drastic to occur in my lifetime.
    No question that this next term is huge for the potential direction of the Court. Scalia is 76, and Ginsburg has real health problems. There is a very good chance one or both of them may need to be replaced next term for health reasons, even if they would otherwise prefer to stay. Given that they are the court's farthest to the right and left justices, that means there is a real chance the composition of the court will change.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskers57 View Post
    ha. get over the wallowing self-pity. YOU CHAMPIONED ROBERTS AS CJ...why don't you back him through thick and thin?
    He's not wallowing in self-pity ... he is expressing thoughtful objections to a supreme court opinion. I'd rather have someone disagree with an opinion that was authored by a justice they like than simply to blindingly accept the ruling no matter what it is.

    That said, I'm hopeful that I can eventually get Thill to see that this ruling is a victory in disguise. It's a trojan horse and Troy is liberal happy big government town.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  15. #55
    Ayyy!
    huskrthill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    37,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskers57 View Post
    ha. get over the wallowing self-pity. YOU CHAMPIONED ROBERTS AS CJ...why don't you back him through thick and thin?
    I did? How do you know this? I didn't join Huskerpedia/max until 2008, when Roberts had been Chief Justice for nearly 3 years.

    Anyway, I'm capable of thinking for myself. Even if I support him, I'm not necessarily going to agree with everything he does or says. I support my wife and kids a helluva lot more than I support any judge, and I still call them out if they do something I think is wrong.

  16. #56
    Ayyy!
    huskrthill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    37,210
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    He's not wallowing in self-pity ... he is expressing thoughtful objections to a supreme court opinion. I'd rather have someone disagree with an opinion that was authored by a justice they like than simply to blindingly accept the ruling no matter what it is.

    That said, I'm hopeful that I can eventually get Thill to see that this ruling is a victory in disguise. It's a trojan horse and Troy is liberal happy big government town.
    I'll roll with it and see how it plays out. I just have very real concerns about things. I'm definitely not alone.

  17. #57
    Now I see why Thill is grumpy today. He called his wife out on something. Always a bad move, Thill. Always.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  18. #58
    Red Shirt
    Inflation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Larryville, Kansas
    Posts
    1,348
    Quote Originally Posted by huskrthill View Post
    I'll take the little victories, but still be vocal about the defeats. I think it's absurd that states have to suck at the federal government teat for those funds anyway. In the end, it's not really going to make a whole lot of difference because we'll just go further into debt at the federal level.



    That may be the case with a (relatively) conservative court, but that could easily change with a second Obama term. Then again, a Romney term could result in a court that is loaded with "conservative" (I don't say that mockingly) justices.

    I guess we'll wait and see. You're right, though. Change won't come fast enough. The types of changes that are necessary - such as repealing the 17th Amendment - are probably too drastic to occur in my lifetime.
    I don't think the states are required to participate in Medicaid. So all these states that are opposed to the medicaid part of the bill, and there are good reasons to be opposed, should just opt out of the program.
    "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    Now I see why Thill is grumpy today. He called his wife out on something. Always a bad move, Thill. Always.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Inflation View Post
    I don't think the states are required to participate in Medicaid. So all these states that are opposed to the medicaid part of the bill, and there are good reasons to be opposed, should just opt out of the program.
    let them opt out.


Posting Permissions

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