Obama lies about increasing taxes on everyone?

[redmachine]

Come on, do you not think the bolded is hyperbole?

No, I don't think it is hyperbole. I then discussed the reasons for that belief in following posts.

[Husker Mort]

...so much ax grinding.

[redmachine]

Conservatives have adopted the "return to the days of smaller government" mantra. Curious to know just how far back you think the Way Back Machine should be turned to "return to a people less dependent on that government." I would also be most interested to hear more detail regarding your claim "that some of our national problems have risen out of oppressive/owerdwhelming government." Please elaborate.

How about we start with those powers issued the federal government in the Constitution? We can dial your machine back to a time when those powers, and only those powers, were performed by the federal government.

I already elaborated on one particular national problem...the looming debt crisis.

[redmachine]

Conservatives in general have been and continue to be criticized for an attitude of..."I have mine so to hell with the poor, sick, and impoverished." (Other's words, not mine) Do you consider this post as not professing that very attitude?

No. It surely does profess that attitude. It isn't the job of the federal government to dole out money to those groups of people you've listed.

[Warhorse]

Conservatives, in general, are no less compassionate than liberals. Speaking for myself, I just don't believe it's governments responsibility to take care of the less fortunate--that's up to you and me.

That sentiment is something I also read/hear a lot from conservatives. That personal philosophy is fine unless you happen through no fault of your own to be one of the "less fortunate," especially children. 23% of the kids in this country live at or below the poverty line. How can the "it's up to you and me" philosophy possibly save that many children?

[Warhorse]

How about we start with those powers issued the federal government in the Constitution? We can dial your machine back to a time when those powers, and only those powers, were performed by the federal government.

I already elaborated on one particular national problem...the looming debt crisis.

I'm not sure we can ever go far enough back to reach a point where as a country we didn't take care of the groups you seem ready to abandon...the poor, the elderly, the sick, and children. And we solve the "looming debt crisis" by creating an oligarchy/plutocracy? That's where we are headed if you pay attention.

[Warhorse]

No. It surely does profess that attitude. It isn't the job of the federal government to dole out money to those groups of people you've listed.

Seriously? Let me get this straight...you are saying that the attitude of "I have mine so to hell with everybody else" is exactly how you feel? Is that what you are saying??

[Lakewood Husker]

That sentiment is something I also read/hear a lot from conservatives. That personal philosophy is fine unless you happen through no fault of your own to be one of the "less fortunate," especially children. 23% of the kids in this country live at or below the poverty line. How can the "it's up to you and me" philosophy possibly save that many children?

after seeing what many liberals like Joe Biden give to charity each year, it appears we do have a big divide on who should be helping out certain groups.

[redmachine]

Seriously? Let me get this straight...you are saying that the attitude of "I have mine so to hell with everybody else" is exactly how you feel? Is that what you are saying??

No, I would never say that. You asked if that was my attitude. As far as the federal government is concerned, yes, that is what I'm saying.


Saving all the poor people is the job of the state and local governments if they choose to do so. Charities and religious organizations, businesses, and similar groups can also provide the services those people may need to help them out.

[Lakewood Husker]

That sentiment is something I also read/hear a lot from conservatives. That personal philosophy is fine unless you happen through no fault of your own to be one of the "less fortunate," especially children. 23% of the kids in this country live at or below the poverty line. How can the "it's up to you and me" philosophy possibly save that many children?

My taxes pay for a free education. My taxes pay for a free school lunch. My charity through my church delivers many free meals and clothing to the less fortunate. Not sure what else you want me to pay for. I can't legislate the parent to provide better, or to stay on the child to work harder at school, both of which is well within most peoples control.

[redmachine]

I'm not sure we can ever go far enough back to reach a point where as a country we didn't take care of the groups you seem ready to abandon...the poor, the elderly, the sick, and children. And we solve the "looming debt crisis" by creating an oligarchy/plutocracy? That's where we are headed if you pay attention.

Let's see...national welfare came along in the 1930's. There's one potential place to start.

Also, the wealthy have pretty much always ruled this country. It's been the hard work and dedication of people, not the government, that have allowed those to move from a lower class into a higher one.

[Warhorse]

No, I would never say that. You asked if that was my attitude. As far as the federal government is concerned, yes, that is what I'm saying.


Saving all the poor people is the job of the state and local governments if they choose to do so. Charities and religious organizations, businesses, and similar groups can also provide the services those people may need to help them out.

OK Thanks for explaining your position on the subject. I must say I completely disagree. I don't think we have any choice because when we become so financially and politically mean-spirited that we tell the poor, the sick, the elderly, and children that they are on their own, we will have lost some of the greatest qualities that makes America the greatest country on the planet...compassion and a sense of fair play.

[Warhorse]

after seeing what many liberals like Joe Biden give to charity each year, it appears we do have a big divide on who should be helping out certain groups.

Why single out Biden?

[Warhorse]

Let's see...national welfare came along in the 1930's. There's one potential place to start.

Also, the wealthy have pretty much always ruled this country. It's been the hard work and dedication of people, not the government, that have allowed those to move from a lower class into a higher one.

Did I get it right?:

1. Turn the WayBack Machine to pre1930--NO social entitlement programs?

2. You are good with the wealthy ruling this country..an oligarchy/plutocracy as it were?

[redmachine]

OK Thanks for explaining your position on the subject. I must say I completely disagree. I don't think we have any choice because when we become so financially and politically mean-spirited that we tell the poor, the sick, the elderly, and children that they are on their own, we will have lost some of the greatest qualities that makes America the greatest country on the planet...compassion and a sense of fair play.

Again, I have no problems helping those who need help, i.e. compassion. Only, that role is not for the federal government to undertake.

[redmachine]

Did I get it right?:

1. Turn the WayBack Machine to pre1930--NO social entitlement programs?

2. You are good with the wealthy ruling this country..an oligarchy/plutocracy as it were?

Yes. NO social entitlement plans. None.

Like I mentioned...the wealthy have always been in charge, why should that change? Instead of attacking the wealthy, I think people should look for ways to become wealthy themselves. It can't happen for everyone but there's nothing wrong with pursuing dreams and goals.

[OmaHusker]

I've an idea: why don't we tax the slackers who have shirked their individual responsibility to provide for themselves?

[Husker Poyer]

I've an idea: why don't we tax the slackers who have shirked their individual responsibility to provide for themselves?

You mean like hypothetically creating a tax if you don't purchase health insurance since those of us with insurance are paying for them?

[huskerator 5000]

In general, the theory has been that if an activity influences interstate commerce, then it falls within the purview of Congress to regulate. Going off memory because working and can't look it up, but I think the most expansive reading is usually thought to be found in Filburn, which regulated the production of wheat for personal use. The thought was that if the farmer was producing his own wheat, then he wasn't buying in the market, which influenced commerce... this was during the Depression when the country was trying to bolster domestic wheat prices.

Okay, thanks. Reading a little of that decision is absolutely does seem to make the case that it's Filburn's lack of activity (not buying wheat on the open market) that was the basis for the ruling. This case is somewhat distinct from the ACA mandate, because the farmer is participating in the agriculture business. Filburn was involved in business activity and he went over the wheat quota, which was against the law. But, I understand that the real "crime" the court was worried about in this case was inactivity.

But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'

So, if you believe that quote above I think you do have to say the ACA falls under the CC.

But, I don't like the above quote at all, personally. I think they should have overturned Filburn with this ruling...I don't think the Federal government should be able to influence commerce in this way, it's too much interference. Agriculture quotas in general I think are bad policy, though probably constitutional when the products are sold on the open market.

Sidenote -- you're right that EMTALA isn't strictly required of all hospitals -- if you don't take Medicare money you don't have to participate.

[OmaHusker]

You mean like hypothetically creating a tax if you don't purchase health insurance since those of us with insurance are paying for them?

Something like that, yes.