Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

  1. #21
    Senior Member Accountable's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    24,996
    Local Date
    07-16-2019
    Local Time
    05:07 AM

    Re: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by yaaarrrgg View Post
    I find it humorous that the Tea Party/GOP has acted so flabbergasted that the law passed. Was it a surprise to them?

    For as much lip service as they give the Constitution, they should have read it. They seem to believe that the federal gov't doesn't have the authority to tax people, much less spend the tax money on something like general welfare and defense. I suspect they know the Constitution about as well as their own Bibles.
    It seems that you are guilty of the same thing.

    Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
    The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    Until this decision was handed down, Congress did not have the authority to directly tax individuals, except by taxing their income. The taxes Justice Roberts invented then declared permissible are not income taxes.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,389
    Local Date
    07-16-2019
    Local Time
    11:07 AM

    Re: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

    Section 8 - Powers of Congress

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    OK you could argue that the definition and use of welfare has changed in meaning since the constitution was written, but then so has that of defence. So the problem is not the notion of changing constitution as attitudes have changed - I don't think you can argue the constitution is some sacred edict that can't be amended as society changes.

    My point being is it not the case that constitutional is what you decide it is today not what someone thought it was three hundred years ago?

    As an aside when first adopted, the Bill of Rights applied to white men and excluded most Americans. Free blacks were excluded from The Bill of Rights because they were not citizens. Also excluded were all women, Native Americans, immigrants and white men who did not own land. Changing attitudes means most in america today would consider that wrong.

  3. #23
    Senior Member AnneBoleyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    6,571
    Local Date
    07-16-2019
    Local Time
    06:07 AM

    Re: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

    Accountable does not deserve a response from me. Thank you.

  4. #24
    Senior Member yaaarrrgg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,262
    Local Date
    07-16-2019
    Local Time
    04:07 AM

    Re: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

    also, the people who wrote the constitution had little understanding of the germ theory of disease. They thought if they sliced their arms and drained "bad blood," it made them healthy. Now we understand that germs have killed more people than Al Qaeda terrorists ever will. Medicine and even more basically, sanitation, falls under defense. Though it is a non-human threat, it's still a major threat to the nation.

    The modern political attitude on disease is much like requiring people to buy employee sponsored "terrorist insurance," which they lose if their house is blown up an they are unable to work.

  5. #25
    Senior Member yaaarrrgg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,262
    Local Date
    07-16-2019
    Local Time
    04:07 AM

    Re: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by Accountable View Post
    It seems that you are guilty of the same thing.
    The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    Until this decision was handed down, Congress did not have the authority to directly tax individuals, except by taxing their income. The taxes Justice Roberts invented then declared permissible are not income taxes.
    Eh, I thought it listed a bunch of tax methods (impost, excise, etc). Income tax was a fairly recent invention. But if you want, it can be thought of as an income tax (eg: you get tax credits if you have insurance, just like any other tax break).

    I honestly don't understand your position, and neither did the Supreme Court, which was stacked with conservative justices.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Accountable's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    24,996
    Local Date
    07-16-2019
    Local Time
    05:07 AM

    Re: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by yaaarrrgg View Post
    I honestly don't understand your position, and neither did the Supreme Court, which was stacked with conservative justices.
    That's a pretty bold & inaccurate statement. Doesn't matter now, though. Justice Roberts has opened the floodgates. Any federal tax is okay, meaning constitutional. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan can go through without a hitch now. Sales taxes, VAT, whatever. It's all good.

  7. #27
    Senior Member yaaarrrgg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,262
    Local Date
    07-16-2019
    Local Time
    04:07 AM

    Re: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by Accountable View Post
    That's a pretty bold & inaccurate statement. Doesn't matter now, though. Justice Roberts has opened the floodgates. Any federal tax is okay, meaning constitutional. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan can go through without a hitch now. Sales taxes, VAT, whatever. It's all good.

    There's no such thing as a different "types" of tax. All tax is tax on income (where do you think the money comes from?). A sales tax, for instance, could be translated into an higher income tax, combined with tax credits to "reward" saving a larger percentage of income. Tax is tax, it split up into different methods of collection in order to make the number look smaller (like 9 + 9 + 9 = 27% + state tax). The only thing the constitution requires is that we (voters) have a say in how the money is spent.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,389
    Local Date
    07-16-2019
    Local Time
    11:07 AM

    Re: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by Accountable View Post
    That's a pretty bold & inaccurate statement. Doesn't matter now, though. Justice Roberts has opened the floodgates. Any federal tax is okay, meaning constitutional. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan can go through without a hitch now. Sales taxes, VAT, whatever. It's all good.
    How is it a federal tax if the money does not go to them but tp insurance companies - or am I missing something?

  9. #29
    Senior Member yaaarrrgg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,262
    Local Date
    07-16-2019
    Local Time
    04:07 AM

    Re: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by gmc View Post
    How is it a federal tax if the money does not go to them but tp insurance companies - or am I missing something?
    I think it's fair to call it a tax.

    One, they've subtracted the amount from income. If the money is sent directly to them, they would just turn around and send it back to insurance companies or health care providers. So by removing themselves from the loop, they've actually made it a bit more efficient (less postage/handling).

    Also, I think the government is paying the insurance and health care in some cases.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Kagan Gay?
    By Lon in forum General Chit Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 05-14-2010, 07:30 AM
  2. Supreme Court snubs Falwell
    By SnoozeControl in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-19-2006, 01:01 PM
  3. Supreme Court resignations
    By spot in forum Current Political Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-14-2005, 02:42 PM
  4. CA. Supreme Court denies geragos
    By lady cop in forum Crimes & Trials
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-29-2004, 05:35 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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