Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

HEALTH CARE: Most of us want law repealed

Letter by Claudia Branham, Graham on April 6, 2012 at 11:42 am with 183 Comments »
April 6, 2012 11:42 am

Re: “Impartiality of Supreme Court smothered by politics” (TNT, 4-5).

When I read this commentary by Maureen Dowd (while waiting in an office for an appointment), it reminded me why I haven’t subscribed to a newspaper for three decades. Dowd is just one of the “talking heads” who is tunnel-visioned and repeats what most of the news media and TV commenters say.

To them, anything that deviates from their liberal, politically correct view is politics of the wrong sort. If she were to take the blinders off, she would realize that most of what is going on in Washington, D.C., is politics. She must not know that 73 percent of Americans want the health care law repealed. They know that parts of it are unconstitutional, and they are sick and tired of losing their personal freedoms.

The bulk of her article is simply rehashing the accusations and statements that comes from those who follow the leading of Saul Alinsky’s socialist workbook, which is something else the majority of Americans abhor. Thank God for the Supreme Court, or else we would definitely have a dictatorship in the USA.

Leave a comment Comments → 183
  1. cclngthr says:

    Is it unconstitutional for a person not to receive potential life saving treatment?

  2. Fibonacci says:

    So Claudia–where do you get 73% of Americans want the health care law repealed? Did yo hear that on Faux News? Some don’t think it goes far enough. How do we solve the problem of hospitals writing off MILLIONS of dollars in unpaid medical expenses from those that have no insurance. Guess what Claudia that debt gets passed on to those of us that DOI have health insurance.

  3. BlaineCGarver says:

    Pelosi: Just pass it and then we can see what is says…..

    Well, it’s been read and re-read, and found to be unconstitutional. Personally, I want health insurance scrapped and a single payer system set up with EVERYone paying into a lockbox for a non-profit CoOp to pay out of.

  4. You must be getting your numbers from Fox.

    I’ve seen numbers as high as 54%. The Gallop poll numbers are around 45%.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx

  5. Fibonacci – in typical right wing fashion, the 73% is most likely the sum of those who oppose Obamacare because it goes too far and those who oppose it because it does not go far enough.

  6. “73 percent of Americans want the health care law repealed.”

    When will the lies from the right stop?

  7. “it’s been read and re-read, and found to be unconstitutional”

    More lies.

  8. alindasue says:

    Ms. Brahnam said, “They know that parts of it are unconstitutional…”

    Last I heard – and I just checked for the latest news – the Supreme Court had not yet made a ruling on the constitutionality of any part of the Affordable Healthcare Act, so how can anyone “know” that parts of it are unconstitutional?

  9. averageJoseph says:

    “Did yo hear that on Faux News” Wow, what a clever refutation. LMAO.

  10. For someone who hasn’t subscribed to a newspaper for three decades the letter writer certainly thinks she knows a lot about a writer for newspapers….

  11. alindasue says:

    xring said, “…those who oppose it because it does not go far enough.”

    Count my among those who feel it does not go far enough – who feel that it ended up being compromised into a confusing less effective mess. However, “Obamacare” (as it is often called) is better than what we had before. Rather than seeing it repealed, I would prefer to see stay in effect while it fine tuned and cleaned up.

  12. whitman411 says:

    I am one of the 73%!

  13. This letter must be making stuff up or repeating ubnfounded rumors she heard somewhere. (Fox?)

    CNN POll – 30% want law overturned
    51% oppose individual mandate

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/cnn-poll-should-health-care-law-be-overturned/?hpt=hp_t1

    CBS Poll – 38% say the entire law should be abolished
    – 67% overturn mandate (includes the 38% above)

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57404793-503544/poll-1-in-4-want-supreme-court-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

    Kaiser – This doesn’t speak to Supreme Court actions, but it does show that a majority of all people in USA support every provision of the health care reform except the individual mandate.

    http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8296.pdf

  14. Pacman33 says:

    I think it’s likely that Claudia is referencing the March 26 “CNN Poll:Should health care law be overturned?”. I say this because the percentage of people who favor all or some of the law, totals exactly 73%. Similar results are consistent across the nation. The fact is poll after poll has determined only a feeble 25% or 1/4 of Americans would NOT favor repeal of all or part of 0bamacare.
    ——————————–
    “If you had to choose, would you rather see the Supreme Court leave the health care law as it is, overturn some provisions of the law but keep other provisions of the law in place, or overturn all provisions in the health care law?”
    Keep law as is 23%
    Overturn some provisions 43%
    Overturn all provisions 30%
    No opinion 4%
    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/03/26/rel3b.pdf
    ——————————–
    USA Today/Gallup: Americans Divided on Repeal of 2010 Healthcare Law
    February 27, 2012
    “Americans overwhelmingly believe the “individual mandate,” as it is often called, is unconstitutional, by a margin of 72% to 20%”
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/152969/Americans-Divided-Repeal-2010-Healthcare-Law.aspx
    ——————————-
    The New York Times: Most Oppose at Least Part of Overhaul, Poll Finds
    Published: March 26, 2012
    “Keeping the law intact is preferred by a mere quarter of those surveyed”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/most-americans-want-health-care-law-overturned-or-changed-poll-finds.html
    ——————————
    ABC News/Washington Post poll : As Health Care Law’s Trial Approaches, Two-Thirds Say Ditch Individual Mandate
    Mar 19, 2012
    “While 67 percent of Americans favor throwing out either the whole law or at least the mandate, the data also can be construed to show that 51 percent favor either keeping the whole law or the law minus the mandate (26 and 25 percent, respectively).”
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/as-health-care-laws-trial-approaches-two-thirds-say-ditch-individual-mandate/

  15. Pacman33 says:

    I don’t know what is wrong with the ABC News link, it was fine a second ago. Here is a link to the poll/study itself showing only 26% would uphold the law with 67% throwing out part or all of the law.
    http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1135a5HealthCare.pdf

  16. aislander says:

    Wow, Claudia, nice going! You certainly turned the rock over…

  17. sandblower says:

    We are waiting next for the announcement that Claudia has won a Pulitzer Prize. Everyone in favor, hold your breath.

  18. LornaDoone says:

    Claudia – is 73% of Americans in favor of insurance companies not covering pre-existent conditions? How about in favor of not being able to cover their children up to age 26 on their policy? Are those Americans in favor of women paying higher rates on insurance than men?

    What those Americans are in favor of is denying “Obamacare” which doesn’t exist and they don’t know it.

    whitman411 says:
    April 6, 2012 at 2:24 pm I am one of the 73%!

    Which of the three issues that I brought up do you not favor?

    Claudia pulled a “Saul Alinsky” by saying someone pulled a Saul Alinsky.

  19. LornaDoone says:

    Claudia, who hasn’t subscribed to a newspaper in 30 years because she doesn’t agree with them – when confronted by a column that she disagreed with, went to a newpaper with her opinion via a letter to the editor to become the next opinion in the newspaper.

    You have to love the irony.

  20. LornaDoone says:

    A little deeper digging found this (on a Ron Paul blog, of all places!)

    CNN poll: 73% want all or part of Obamacare repealed!
    Of course, CNN didn’t report it that way. But feel free to copy and paste my summation to spread and drudge.

    50% Don’t like law
    43% do like it

    73% want ALL or Part of it overturned by SCOTUS
    23% want it left as it is

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com…be-overturned/

    Claudia, what was that “Saul Alinsky” thing you were talking about?

  21. NotPoliticallyCorrect says:

    How many in here think all those in congress, read the entire bill?

    How many in here have read the bill, along with all the hidden ammendments in other bills?

  22. aislander says:

    NPC: EVERYBODY who was interested MUST have read the bill, because it was supposed to be posted online. I remember candidate Obama PROMISING that ALL legislation would be available that way.

    So, it must have happened. Right?

  23. LornaDoone says:

    So Aislander, who claims to be interested MUST have read the bill.

    With that information in the forefront, why does Aislander oppose insured parents being able to insure their kids until age 26? Isn’t that an individual freedom?

    Why would anyone be opposed to the pre-existent condition clause, unless they just feel that unlucky folks should die?

    Why should women have to pay higher premiums and health care costs than men? Sounds rather discriminatory to me

    The legislation WAS online, so Aislander MUST have read it.

    Of course, you can’t find it under “Obamacare”.

  24. Pacman33 says:

    Lardnos falsely mutters –

    “You want to call it Obamacare — that’s okay, because I do care”
    ~ Barrack 0bama
    Atlanta
    March 16 2012
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/remarks-president-campaign-event-atlanta-ga

    Why people like Obamacare
    “This past Friday, on the second anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama campaign tweeted, encouraging supporters to embrace the term Obamacare.”
    http://www.democrats.org/news/blog/why_people_like_obamacare

  25. Pacman33 says:

    That should have said:
    Lardnos falsely mutters –
    “Obamacare” which doesn’t exist and they don’t know it.

  26. spotted1 says:

    I want the healthcare law passed. I want to see the government tax those who don’t have healthcare. I want to see what happens when the healthcare is in effect and people are refused care because it is too costly or they are asking too late in the year. Because the quota is all ready been used up…Good times…Can’t wait for it.

  27. LornaDoone says:

    “What those Americans are in favor of is denying “Obamacare” which doesn’t exist and they don’t know it.”

    Try for context this time, Pacman. It’s kinda like that game “Smart as a 5th Grader”. Do try to edit my comments to your level of stupidity.

    If one of the opposers of “Obamacare” tried to look up the details of “Obamacare” on the internet, to at least attempt to educate themselves on what they claim to oppose, they won’t find it under “Obamacare” despite the President’s humor and dig at the conservatives who love to demonize anything he does.

    Despite the Presidents quip, if you look up “Obamacare text”, there is no website to provide you the legislative text. Those same people that don’t have a clue as to what the legislation says, would have to be able to comprehend the logic of a search engine that will group the words “Obama”, “care”, and “text”, which will take you to all sorts of sites, but not the text of the Affordable Health Care Act.

    You have to use the big boys and girls terminology.

  28. LornaDoone says:

    spotted1 – do you root against those cancer patients who are close to policy limits?

  29. aislander says:

    Right…It did END UP online:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

  30. Pacman33 says:

    Lardna incoherently rambles –
    “Do try to edit my comments to your level of stupidity.”
    Talk about stupidity? What is different about your false rant after my reckless “edit”?

    EDITED:“Obamacare” which doesn’t exist and they don’t know it.”
    NOT EDITED:”What those Americans are in favor of is denying “Obamacare” which doesn’t exist and they don’t know it.”

    What Changed?????????????????
    The false, creepy fallacy is still just as false and creepy. What does merely omitting “What those Americans are in favor of is denying..” change whatsoever? And regardless of such asinine foolishness, how does this or the supposed absence of “legislative text” on the internet, even begin to support the erroneous claim of: “Obamacare” not existing?

  31. Aislander – It is not within the President’s Power’s to require Congress to post legislation.

  32. Pacman33 says:

    Loona obliviously barks:
    “A little deeper digging found this ……
    73% want ALL or Part of it overturned by SCOTUS
    23% want it left as it is”

    If you were the least bit coherent you might have realized I determined Claudia was likely citing the CNN poll an hour before your pointless remarks that didn’t even begin to attempt to refute her claim.

    73% of Americans who want at least part of the law repealed, still “want the health care law repealed”, regardless of them liking parts of the bill.

    The fact is the anti-American Progs that are for the bill, all 25% of them, routinely state the mandate is the guts of the law. Secondly, the Dems were in such a impetuous frenzy to shove their unconstitutional bill down our throats, they forgot to insert a severability clause. Due to their incompetence, a partial bill being upheld is likely impossible. Finally, the court would be essentially rewriting law by upholding part of the bill. It would be judicial activism to conclude anything else besides upholding or throwing out the law in it’s entirety.

  33. aislander says:

    xring: Then why did ‘bama say he was going to do that?

  34. bobcat1a says:

    “Free stuff sounds great, but nothing is free. Huge govt solutions are not the American standard, nor should they be.”

    Absolutely, why should we Americans live as long as those furriners and pay less for the privilege. That just makes us weak. Only the strong should survive.

  35. geeterpontiac says:

    Well said Claudia,

    Thanks

  36. concernedtacoma7 says:

    BC1, you intentionally ignored the substance of my statement.

    We have a decreasing capitalist base supporting an increasing socialist structure. We are founded on individual freedom and responsiblity. You are calling for a transformation into something we are not, avoiding the fact that we became the most powerful and wealthy nation in history based on policies opposite of what the left desires.

  37. menopaws says:

    As I have said before—it must be exhausting defending the freedom to be stupid……….The idea that the health care law removes personal freedoms is one of the DUMBEST ideas out there……..Increasing the insurance pool by 30 million people is economic—not the equivalent of losing your personal freedoms……But, hey—the dumbing down of America is always a work in progress, Claudia. You are obviously one of their success stories.

  38. “I want to see what happens when the healthcare is in effect and people are refused care because it is too costly or they are asking too late in the year. Because the quota is all ready been used up”

    What are you talking about?

  39. Dave98373 says:

    This law will be repealed come June and we will have wasted money and time pickering on a law that was flawed from the very start (Pelosi: “I haven’t read the law but pass it anyaway.”). What’s next fellow Americans? Four more years of crafty legislation to circumvent the U.S. Constitution or a different approach? The real answer is to come to some sort of compromise on health care and move on to other pressing matters such as the economy. Sadly, our elected politicians are incapable of compromising on anything and are too entrenched in thier parties ideology to consider any other options.

  40. “Aislander – It is not within the President’s Power’s to require Congress to post legislation.”

    She knows that xring, she knows, but the truth doesn’t fit her agenda so it will be ignored.

  41. “(Pelosi: “I haven’t read the law but pass it anyaway.”)”

    Tell the lie often enough…..

  42. Dave98373 says:

    kluwer- This is the official quote Pelosi made public in San Francisco back in March of 2010 (when she was Speaker of the House), “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” When a follow-up question asked her if she had read the entire law and if she could provide details she replied, “I have not read the entire law.”

  43. Dave98373 says:

    And by the way kluwer…this piece of legislation came from an administration that promised more government transparency. It is astounding that people defend such nonsense and even to this day, the average American has no clue on how much this health care will cost us or impact our daily lives.

  44. cadana1961 says:

    Sorry Claudia, You don’t speak for me … No doubt you are reiterating the Sunday sermon … And FOX news …

  45. “This is the official quote Pelosi made public in San Francisco back in March of 2010″

    And you know that taking quotes out of context is dishonest and typical of the morally bankrupt right wing.

  46. Yep, it’s the weekend alright, the far right trolls are in full attack mode.

  47. I don’t know what most people want. I do know what I want and most of the people I know want…a single payer option.

  48. “the average American has no clue on how much this health care will cost us or impact our daily lives”

    But somehow you think that repeating the outright lies and misinformation from the far right you DO know? You probably think that the big scary evil Govt will be in control of your health care don’t you? If you do, and we know you do, YOU are proof of your statement.
    Wanna buy a bridge?

  49. buddyandelliott says:

    Just one simple question Claudia. I believe that you are over 65 years old (say around 74?) and I therefore assume you take advantage of the goernment-provided medical insurance that everyone your age has. My question is why you think no one else should have guaranteed medical access in the wealthiest country on earth. I’ve come to believe that a lot of people your age are the most selfish and self-centered folks that have ever lived.

  50. averageJoseph says:

    “It is not within the President’s Power’s to require Congress to post legislation” Which is yet another illustration of how ignorant he is OR that he lies… maybe both.

  51. islandernwly says:

    @buddyandelliott; I’ve come to believe that a lot of people your age are the most selfish and self-centered folks that have ever lived.
    And I have to think that your rear must be doing your thinking for you. I don’t agree with Claudia, but your statement unless you can back it up with facts is just toilet talk.

  52. buddyandelliott says:

    Yeah island, I was a bit brash there lumping her in with everyone of her age group.

    I work in health care and I see so many younger people that don’t qualify for any healthcare assistance and can’t afford private insurance get sicker and sicker. A large example that comes to mind is the type 1 diabetics I work with that have that pre-existing condition that prevents private insurance, but they are productive humans so they don’t qualify for health care assistance.

    I contrast those cases with a lotof the older folks I work with enjoying government paid benefits, pre-existing conditions don’t matter, work status doesn’t matter, and I smile and act interested when they complain about the government getting involved in health care because only the elderly “deserve it” and only they have worked for it.

    Maybe the retirees who want everyone to have healthcare don’t utilize the system like the people I work with do. If I met those people maybe I wouldn’t call that the most self-centered group in the world. When I said self-centered, et. al., it was offered as an opinion based on my experience. There are no facts to back up the description of an opinion of character traits.

  53. the3rdpigshouse says:

    The communist wanna-be “OH-Bummer” merely finds the citizens and the U.S. Constitution impediments to his socialist tranformation efforts while President!! Wake up citizens!!

  54. computer1015 says:

    If God had wanted everyone to have affordable health care, He
    wouldn’t have created insurance companies.

  55. Thirdpig: Communism and Socialism are not the same thing. You have no idea at all about this do you? And I agree the elderly are system suckers. I have Said it before: it is absurd to pay hundreds of thousands on old people while allowing young and healthy to go without any preventative care…then we are stuck paying for the compunded health issues when they are old. If we had any sense as a society we would keep people healthy which is cheaper than heart surgeries for eighty year olds. We would even then have healtier old people and better options. Of course there is always the soilent green option.

  56. Darn autocorrect. I meant outcomes not options. And claudia should give up her free care. See how she likes paying her own way.

  57. sumyungboi says:

    It doesn’t matter if it’s good law or bad, it doesn’t matter if people like it or not. What matters is The Constitution, and Obamacare doesn’t pass muster. Too bad, libbies.

  58. Sroldguy says:

    Anyone that thinks being over 65 entitles everyone to “free” health care better start reading up on Medicare because you are going to be in for a big surprise on your 65th birthday.

    Not long before you turn 65 your mail box will fill up with offers for supplemental Medicare insurance policies. If it is free why would you need more insurance now?

    Then social security will send you a statement showing the amount of your social security benefits. You know the pay off for all those years you and your employer contributed a small percentage out of every paycheck. You will notice a line that says “The amount we deduct for Medicare medical insurance is…” Wait a minute. I thought I already paid for that?

    Don’t forget those pills you need to take after that heart operation. Medicare doesn’t cover those, but you can have even more subracted from your social security to pay for that magic word again – insurance.
    Pill insurance.

    Maybe everyone should think twice about Obamacare?
    What you think you are going to get isn’t always what you get from the government!

  59. Fibonacci says:

    sumyungboi
    “Obamacare doesn’t mass muster”. Darn, when did the Supreme Court make its decision? I thought that they are now deciding after hearing testimony. When did I miss the announcement that they were done? Or are yo smarter than the judges on the Supreme Court?

  60. Pacman33 says:

    Maybe you should tell n0bama-don’t-Care(about no Constitution).

    Why else would he be talking all that mess to SCOTUS unless he wasn’t sure or possibly heard a ‘Hot-Tip’. If he thought it stood a chance he would have worked his tired, worn out “Historic” song and dance. Maybe even have Webster make another appearance, like he did that day 0bama was handing out all those free pens for no reason.

  61. NotPoliticallyCorrect says:

    Emoo, if the elderly are such system suckers as you state, costing thousands of dollars. Are you suggesting, paying 50 cents to a dollar and putting bullet in the back of the head, at say age 60? Then into the oven to be disposed of?

    Heck the government knows what the money making businesses are. Oil industry, auto industry, insurance business etc..

    Besides does anybody know this, why is a 1099 required for the purchase or sale of $600 of silver or gold in a year have to do with healthcare? Yes, that is in there.

  62. concernedtacoma7 says:

    We became the wealthiest nation on earth by ensuring personal freedoms and responsibility, not hand outs.

    The incredible amount of federal money being spent (and proposed) and healthcare is dangerous. It ties the hand of govt, reduces flexibility in spending and shifts the burden on future generations.

  63. the3rdpigshouse says:

    emoo – A brain is aa terrible thing to waste!! Do some more homework on the subject matter!!

  64. averageJoseph says:

    “auto correct” ??? wtheck… are you writing in WORD and then multiple posting to various web sites? LMAO

  65. averageJoseph says:

    My bad… copy/pasting in word…reposting, THEN reading what you “wrote”.

  66. concernedtacoma7 says:

    AJ- Most likely a smart phone.

  67. CC – apparently it is unconstitutional as Courts often overruled the desires of some religious parents and ordered life saving treatments for children. And unless a person has a valid DNR emt’s and emergency medical personal routinely perform life saving treatments.

    Aislander – did POTUS say we was going to do it or was it a suggestion on how to make government more transparent?
    Dave & others: do you all really believe every member of congress reads every bill before they vote on it? Anyone need a bridge?

    Okay Joe – show me in the Constitution where the President has ANY power over Congress. In the meantime eat crow.

    Piggy – “The Constitution is an inconvenient piece of paper” according to Bush 2.

    Take you own advice and do some research before you post your tripe.

    N.P.C. go look up ‘riders’ which are ‘amendments’ to bills usually unrelated to the basic bill and often unable to obtain be passed as separate bills.

    CT7 – money spent on healthcare is dangerous, but money given to supposedly profitable multination corporations is not dangerous?

  68. took14theteam says:

    Or a k a r d

    Thanks TNT moderation.

    Nice to see that one man has ruined this website with his behavior such that his many past “monikers” are forbidden words. I am sure he has a tingle up his leg because of this.

  69. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Xring- please show me where the ‘evil oil companies’ get a check from the govt (besides in the obvious purchasing of fuel). Educate yourself…

    Oil companies do not add trillions to our debt. People demanding a service they only paid a part of do.

  70. Dave98373 says:

    “But somehow you think that repeating the outright lies and misinformation from the far right you DO know? You probably think that the big scary evil Govt will be in control of your health care don’t you? If you do, and we know you do, YOU are proof of your statement.
    Wanna buy a bridge?”

    You talk a lot…a lot!!!…but have not facts to back up any allegations. You should run for office.

  71. Dave98373 says:

    xring– Are you for real? “Dave & others: do you all really believe every member of congress reads every bill before they vote on it? Anyone need a bridge?”

    The most important piece of law in our lifetime is not read by the very authors who write it and you have the audacity to not question any part of it? Please write me a blank check and I will make sure your bridge is built.

  72. Dave98373 says:

    “This is the official quote Pelosi made public in San Francisco back in March of 2010″

    Kluwer- Truth hurts….huh pal?

  73. LornaDoone says:

    “Oil companies do not add trillions to our debt.”

    No, just billions.

  74. LornaDoone says:

    “took14theteam says:
    April 7, 2012 at 8:41 pm Or a k a r d
    Thanks TNT moderation.
    Nice to see that one man has ruined this website with his behavior such that his many past “monikers” are forbidden words. I am sure he has a tingle up his leg because of this.”

    Does this have something to do with the subject of Affordable Health Care? I do know that I tried to call someone known as “Larry” “fine” and my comment wouldn’t post, but I’m not going to obsess about it.

    Maybe you need to send a letter to the editor about your concerns. Oh heck, you’d have to use your real name, or at least the one that you faked when the editors call you for verification.

    Maybe it’s YOUR behavior that is being moderated. Ya think?

  75. LornaDoone says:

    Dave98373 says:
    April 7, 2012 at 10:30 pm xring– Are you for real? “Dave & others: do you all really believe every member of congress reads every bill before they vote on it? Anyone need a bridge?”
    The most important piece of law in our lifetime is not read by the very authors who write it and you have the audacity to not question any part of it? Please write me a blank check and I will make sure your bridge is built.

    Dave98373 says:
    April 7, 2012 at 10:37 pm “This is the official quote Pelosi made public in San Francisco back in March of 2010″
    Kluwer- Truth hurts….huh pal?

    1. – Congress has aides that do the reading. Sort of like the Koch Brothers don’t read every contract they sign.

    2. It’s not the official quote of Pelosi. It’s the offical edited version by the Republicans of what Pelosi said.

  76. LornaDoone says:

    “Besides does anybody know this, why is a 1099 required for the purchase or sale of $600 of silver or gold in a year have to do with healthcare? Yes, that is in there.”

    Not sure how it’s related to health care, unless they are trying to track phoney providers who are charging cash and not claiming it, but a 1009 is more than a form for gold or silver. Any self employed person, providing personal services in excess of $600 annually to a company, is issued a 1099.

  77. Maybe everyone should think twice about Obamacare?
    What you think you are going to get isn’t always what you get from the government!

    You won’t get anything from the big scary Govt with the evil ‘Obamacare’, only idiots and morons think that.

  78. “Kluwer- Truth hurts….huh pal?”

    SO now it’s the truth if you say it is??
    Wow, how is that working out for you?

  79. thirdpig: you have zero understanding of the political and economic systems that you throw around loosely regularly and I need to do my homework? Really?

  80. thirdpig: you have zero understanding of the political and economic systems that you throw around loosely (Like Socialism and Communism being two differing “isms”) and I need to do my homework? Really?

  81. @Averagejoseph: No, I was on my phone. It auto corrects. @notpoliticallycorrect: Not a bullet at all. BUT-70% of ALL healthcare dollars in the U.S. goes to the elderly and the disabled. That is the truth. So if we spend 100K on a heart operation for an 80 year old )let’s face it-borrowed time) while complaining about helping the healthy people and keeping them healthy(andmaking a commitment to pay for their poor health only after 65 and the problems are less manageable and more expensive)- makes zero sense. @Sroldguy: Thank the Texas dolt GWB and his great prescription drug plan for that. Can’t bargain with the drug companies as a HUGE customer??nope, may hurt the poor ceo. And again I ask, how do we justify socialism in healthcare for the old? Let them buy their own! They should have saved more money! Isn’t that the republican way? Or is that only poor people, but because you are nostalgic about grandma and grandpa that huge expenditure of tax money is useful? It is not a consistent argument.

  82. flamotte says:

    Obama was right on. Republicans don’t want the court tinkering with our laws: they want them determined by the elected reps in Congress… until they see one they don’t like: then they want it repealed by right-wing judicial activists on the Supreme Court. Sheer hypocrisy.

  83. THIS is the crux of the matter for those not distracted by all of the “we-care-about-people-more-than-you” propaganda and hype. REform is not the same as TRANSform. And btw, this is why language IS important.

  84. oops, I left out the quote to which I was referring in my previous post. It was in the comment made by concerned:

    “You are calling for a transformation into something we are not,”

    about which I replied:

    THIS is the crux of the matter for those not distracted by all of the “we-care-about-people-more-than-you” propaganda and hype. REform is not the same as TRANSform.

    And flamotte, what I believe they want is to uphold the constitution. I realize there’s a warp in your filter system, but really.

  85. You say that most of us want the law repealed but you only see the reason from your narrow point of view. Many of us want a law that looks more like single payer and less like mandatory automobile insurance. Many of us are tired of being declined access to health care due to the callous nature of the very insurance companies that claim to be on our side. Because health insurance companies profit by denying claims and access they can hardly be considered our advocates. They are our adversaries, pure and simple.
    Many of us would like to see this law repealed so that Congress can get to work creating a law that does not play patty-cake with the insurance lobby; one which actually considers the very people who need healthcare without labeling us as “pre-existing conditions.”

  86. menopaws says:

    I agree with Bandito……….we all need comprehensive health care. It is not something like a luxury car or the newest I-phone…….It is a necessity. People don’t want hand-outs–they just want to have the care their families need, without having to go bankrupt or lose their homes to do it………there will always be “freeloaders”, but lumping good people who work and don’t have insurance at their jobs and can’t afford to buy is just not fair. We have turned into a truly mean-spirited society when all those good “Christians” are cheering for people without health insurance to just die……..It’s just shameful and we need to think about where all that anger and mean comes from…….

  87. aislander says:

    So…Flamotte…do you believe there should be ANY limits on what the branches of government can do (other than the one you wish to impose on the Judicial one in this case) and, if so, who would impose such limits?

  88. “REform is not the same as TRANSform.”

    Thing is, you on the far right think that ANY reform IS transform!
    There really is onlyreform with the evil ‘Obamacare’ NOT transform.

    Stop swallowing YOUR propaganda.

  89. CT& – fyi.

    Obama’s Bid to End Oil Subsidies Revives Debate

    WASHINGTON — When he releases his new budget in two weeks, President Obama will propose doing away with roughly $4 billion a year in subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies, in his third effort to eliminate federal support for an industry that remains hugely profitable.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/earth/01subsidy.html?_r=1

    Dave – please do try to follow the main treads – one of which is The Fact that no one was able read the Affordable Care Act before it was passed and signed.

    I never said I did not question parts of the bill.

    The only bridge you are capable of building is one that goes no were and does nothing.

  90. concernedtacoma7 says:

    X- you forgot to mention that not one democrat voted in favor of that budget. You also have also failed to educated yourself on what the ‘evil oil subsidies’ are; an accounting deduction. All companies use them (ask GE!).

    They cost the taxpayer nothing. Just more rhetoric coming out of the left. You really want to talk about taxes, address the fact that 49.5% of Americans pay zero for their defense and zero to a small fraction of their ‘entitlements’.

  91. Hey, Lamotte, aislander and sozo! Are you folks from Charles Wright Academy? Do you all know one another?

  92. CT7,
    Even the Oil Company Executives call the $4 billion subsidies.

    But call they what you want – the bottom line is that the Oil Companies get $4billion that should go to the Federal Government.

    Nice try at deflection. Even better try at attempting to pass of right-wing talking points as fact.

  93. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Why should it go to the federal govt? Please explain.

    While you are at it, please explain the left’s war on energy, business, freedom, guns, unity, the Constitution, values, marriage, responsibility, the military, and future generations. Thanks!

  94. “You also have also failed to educated yourself on what the ‘evil oil subsidies’ are; an accounting deduction.”

    Repeat the lie often enough……

  95. “You really want to talk about taxes, address the fact that 49.5% of Americans pay zero for their defense and zero to a small fraction of their ‘entitlements’.”

    And another lie that needs to be repeated and repeated.

  96. Social Security and Medicare have withstood any challenges to Constitutionality. The Heritage Foundation’s plan accepted by Obama and supported by the Insurance companies for an Individual Mandate is – most likely – going to be rejected by the SC5. So we have plans that are imposed via taxation are Constitutional, plans imposed by mandated purchase aren’t.

    Essentially this means that the Constitution accepts socialism but rejects fascism.

    Obama’s big mistake was to take universal single-payer off the table before the negotiations started. He went corporatist, trying to appease the Insurance Industry when he should have gone socialist.

  97. Stop complaining and repeal the Bush tax cuts.

  98. CT7 – the subsides can either go to the Oil Companies, are reaming in the US treasury. Your choice.

    What Big Brothers Lushes and Billo call war are countermeasures to prevent the fascist right from turning us in to a centralized corporate theocracy.

    Bandito – only repeal the Bushwacks for those earning over $250K.

  99. aislander says:

    xring: raising taxes to Clinton-era (THAT was a long time ago, no?) levels would raise only $70 billion per year, according to IRS numbers. That’s only if the tax increase didn’t have a negative impact on economic activity, which is not likely, so the revenues would probably be less than projected…

    Just for fun: IRS figures show that the top 1% earns 18% of income, but paid almost 37% of income taxes in 2009, the last year for which numbers are available. The bottom 50% paid only around 2%, and are not paying their fair share.

    By the way, the percentage paid by the top 1% rose after the Bush tax cuts, and that paid by the bottom 50% fell after those cuts…

  100. “only $70 billion per year”…..

    :::::::shaking my head:::::::

  101. scott0962 says:

    Ironically, the Congress and president had the constitutional authority, and the votes, to create a single payer health care system supported by tax dollars but instead chose to go the insurance mandate route. Why?

    Could it be that they were reluctant to give up the campaign donation gravy train from trial lawyers, insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, hospital owners and all the other special interests who are making a tidy profit from the existing health care system?

    So instead of reforms for universal and affordable health care we still have the best health care system–and Congress–money can buy, but only for those with the money to buy it.

  102. aislander says:

    I left out that would be if rates were raised only on those making $250K, or more. If ALL the rates were raised, $400 billion MORE would be realized.

    Damned 99% just isn’t pulling its weight…

  103. aislander says:

    beerBoy: xring asserted that he wanted ONLY the rates of $250K+ earners to be raised, and that’s to what I was responding.

    $70 billion IS a lot of money, but, compared to our deficit and debt, it is a tiny percentage…

  104. Aislander,
    Need I remind you that tax rates are only part of the problem.

    What is needed more that adjusting the tax rates is to close the loop-holes that favor the top 10% including doing away with the capital gains tax for investments held for less than 5 years.

    Top 1% incomes have quadrupled in last 28 years and they now control 35% of the wealth in this country, while the top 10% control 75%.

    Just thank how much more the 1% would pay if they had to pay income on ALL their income and not just the portion ‘earned and reported’ in the US.

  105. aislander says:

    xring: At his peak, John D. Rockefeller controlled about HALF the private wealth in America. Things have gotten better, not worse, in that regard.

    I’ve seen the numbers, and the entire wealth of the top 1% would run the government for only a short time and have little impact on the deficit, let alone the national debt. Nice try.

    As I have posted, MANY TIMES, I am in favor of closing ALL loopholes and simplifying the tax system. Your ideas regarding capital gains seem arbitrary, though, and seem intended to punish investment.

  106. If you could show where the tax cuts created an economic boom, as promised, then you would have something ailander, but as always you have very little other than blank talking points.

  107. aislander says:

    And, xring, what is the mechanism by which raising taxes (removing money from the economy), sending the supposedly increased revenues to Uncle Robin Hood, and sending that money back out into the economy, is to cause increased economic activity?

    Why not leave the money in the economy in the first place?

  108. LornaDoone says:

    “seem intended to punish investment”

    Interesting how taxes, which pay for services that the investment people enjoy becomes “punishment” as opposed to a “fee” or “cost of doing business”

  109. Aislander,
    ‘Rockefeller’ – prove it.

    Have you not heard of the national debt?
    Or that vast wealth is being horded in off shore accounts to avoid US taxes?
    Surely you’ve heard how the American Jobs are going overseas?

    Oh, right you know that is not so because Billo told you so.

    The best way to get money into our economy is create jobs here rather than over there.

  110. anotherID2remember says:

    “America will not vote to become socialist. It will wake up one day and realize that they have passed laws that made it socialist.”

    What would you call a country where the majority of mortgages are held by the government?

    What would you call a country in which the larege banks are owned the the government?

    What would you call a country in which the government and the businesses it owns are the largest employer?

    What would you call a country that taxes a minority of the population for the “better good” of the rest of society?

    What would you call a country that provides health care for young, elderly, poor and illegal?

    I would call it the United Socialists of America!

    Long live the USA!

  111. aislander says:

    Here’s a question I’ve asked before that lefties have so far avoided like a veritable plague:

    At what point is a critical mass reached–enough people in favor–that it is okay to steal other people’s property?

  112. Stupid!

  113. aislander, despite your hatred of our republican form of government, taxation by a duly elected government is not theft. Taxation without representation is theft in the eyes of us republicans in the USA (note small “r”), but we solved that through our form of democracy.

    For some taxation a simple majority wins it, and for others, a 2/3 majority is needed or some other legislated majority. I don’t think “lefties” are avoiding your question, it’s just a pretty ridiculously simple thing for anyone who took any civics classes. Any citizen of the US should be expected to be able to answer it.

    I’m sorry that you are so undereducated, but I know it took courage for you to have to announce your ignorance in public, so I’ll give you that.

    Are you ready to revolt or just revolting?

  114. aislander says:

    Ah–a start. When the Founders were discussing the type of government to have, they decided early on that the people were to lend government some of their own power so that government could do things they couldn’t do as individuals, communities, and states. Taxes were to be collected for such purposes, for the benefit of all the people.

    BUT, they also decided that the people could not give the government power that was not theirs to give. Self defense, for example, is an intrinsic right, so government was given the responsibility of defending the nation. Other functions of government were assigned using the same reasoning.

    The Founders also decided that no one had a right to take from another for his own benefit, so government was not allowed to do so either.

    A lot of you seem to believe, however, that if enough people decide to take from others for the benefit of themselves or a third party, it becomes legitimate to do so.

    So, that leads back to the question: at what point is critical mass reached so that property may be taken from people to benefit other people? If individuals don’t have the right to take things from others–even for the purpose of helping someone else (or, heaven forbid themselves! THAT would never happen, of course…), how can they, in the view of the Founders, give that power to government?

    What does it take? A simple majority? Three out of five? Wouldn’t want to be walking down the street carrying valuables in THAT world.

    Help me out here…

  115. aislander says:

    To clarify: I don’t consider taxation to be theft if it is collected to fund legitimate functions of government that benefit the nation as a whole…

  116. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Taxation to pay for universal services that benefit everyone equally (fire, police, military) are not in question. What is in question is the taking of wealth from one indiviual and handing it to another.

  117. anotherID – you are confused about the definition of socialism (unless, of course you are using should a broad definition as to be rather meaningless rather than the more commonly understood use of the word since Marx) and should utilize the term “fascism” (or – less perjoratively Godwin-infractioning and still accurate – “corporatism”) for several of the items on you list.

  118. What does it take? A simple majority? Three out of five?

    Nope – 5 out of 9.

  119. “Here’s a question I’ve asked before that lefties have so far avoided like a veritable plague:”

    You confuse laughing at with avoid.

  120. “Help me out here…”

    As brain washed as you are, can accept the help that many here have trying to give you?

  121. I love how “originalists” tend to avoid what the Founders actually wrote concerning the dangers of maintaining large standing armies when citing the Constitution to justify huge budgets to maintain large standing armies….

  122. aislander says:

    I love how beerBoy condemns the avoiding of certain issues, but has so far avoided addressing the question of when it becomes legitimate to take the property of others to give to someone else…

    How about a hundred people see a homeless person shivering in winter, and another (presumably rich) person walking down the street with a warm overcoat over his Brioni suit. They hold a quick plebiscite and decide to take the coat to give to the homeless one. After all, the former owner of the coat would still have his suit to keep him relatively warm.

    A seventy-five percent majority agrees to that and the possession of the coat is transferred.

    So…is that enough of a majority–and enough of an electorate–to legitimize theft?

    Remember, no individual had the right to take the coat, so how can a number of individuals transfer that nonexistent right to a “government?”

  123. aislander says:

    C’mon! What’s the magic number?

  124. answered already

    5 out of 9

  125. “government not allowed to take for own benefit”

    As usually Aislander does not understand what it misspeaks about.

    Here’s two hints ‘eminent domain’ ‘due process.’

  126. “when it becomes legitimate to take the property of others to give to someone else…”

    When that is a legitimate ‘threat’ then you might find someone to talk to but as it it you are the only one that thinks it’s real.
    The rest of us are in fact laughing at you.

  127. aislander says:

    No misspeaking, xring. Democrats have always used government as a means to transfer wealth and buy votes, but you all seem to be missing the point–purposely, I believe…

    If one loses control of his property through due process, that falls under a different category than confiscatory taxation, although the process HAS been misused at times.

    beerBoy’s non-responsive “response” aside, no one has addressed my basic question: What is the number required at which, when a group of people decide to take the property of others to benefit a third party, it legitimizes the taking?

    If you can’t defend THAT, you can’t defend the entire progressive project…

  128. If you can’t defend THAT, you can’t defend the entire progressive project…

    I’m sure you are pleased with your strawman. My “non-responsive response” is entirely appropriate for your non-reality based question.

  129. aislander says:

    It IS based in the reality of the Founding Fathers’ idea that government had no moral basis for taking the property of citizens for uses that didn’t benefit those citizens, along with the nation as a whole.

    Taking from some to provide for others violates that principle, so there must be a point at which enough citizens approve the taking to make it a moral thing to do. I want to know what that point is.

  130. “Democrats have always used government as a means to transfer wealth and buy votes”

    Do you ever tell the truth?

  131. aislander – You refer to taxes as theft (while maintaining a logical (loop)hole to pretend that you only mean “bad” taxes) that takes money away from one group and redistributes it to another.

    Yet remain blithely silent about eminent domain – which is a far more direct (rather than metaphoric) practice of redistribution of property through seizure

  132. aislander says:

    I also oppose the Kelo decision, beerBoy, but that IS another discussion. It is also small potatoes compared to the multi-trillion dollar hole created mostly by Federal “charities” and the misuse of the power of taxation…

    Can we agree that, if I am cold and hungry and see someone wearing warm clothes and carrying a doggy-bag from Indochine, I have no right to rob the guy to get what I want?

  133. If we can agree that you have no right to hire that person at poverty wages and unsafe conditions….

  134. aislander says:

    I TOLD you lefties always deflect on this question, but I’ll plug along anyway.

    You didn’t assert that I would have a right to rob someone to get what I want, but rather went off on a bit of a tangent, so I would infer that we agree on the no robbing thing. Right?

    So, what if you and I are walking down the street and we see that situation from a third-person standpoint. Do we have the moral right to rob the guy on behalf of the underprivileged, if we both agree to do so?

  135. Rightwing strawman ‘arguments’, amazing.

  136. aislander keeps trying to equate due process, taxation with representation, Constitutional separation of powers and other processes of government we hold dear as our republican form of democracy with “theft”.

    As beerBoy points out, the final say-so lets a simple majority of 9 judges determine constitutionality or “theft” by government.

    aislander wants all decisions to be made by aislander. If he disagrees with questions that come before our nation and even if the outcome follows the constitutional process, then it is theft.

    I’m not sure where one could go in the world to live like that, but I bet we’d be able to take up a hefty collection to help him on his way there.

    And, aislander, several people have pointed out that “robbing” is against the law in our country. We would (and have) convicted Robin Hood-type thieves, sometimes glorifying them for their brilliant techniques or altruistic motives, but still letting them rot in jail.

  137. aislander – you have reframed taxation as robbing. I have reframed running sweat shops as robbing.

    This isn’t deflection – this is acknowledgment of differing points of view – yours, which wants to protect the freedoms of the haves, and mine, which wants to protect the freedoms of the have-nots.

  138. aislander says:

    I haven’t reframed anything–I merely asked the question: at what point does robbery become legal and moral?

    Tuddo says “…’robbing’ is against the law in our country,” which actually gets us closer to the question. At what point does something that is clearly “against the law” become lawful?

    If my neighbors and I decide to incorporate our shared street and then absorb the street one block downhill (those people have more than their fair share of the view and there are more of us up here), is THAT legal and moral?

    This is all I want to know: at what point does that happen? Exactly

  139. aislander says:

    tuddo writes: “…]aislander believes that]…even if the outcome follows the constitutional process, then it is theft.”

    Actually, tuddo, I believe the Framers of the Constitution would strongly assert that the document was written with the purpose of preventing such transfers, since they argued persuasively AGAINST them.

    The Founding Fathers would view this as a clear example of tyranny of the majority…

  140. Wow. even more straw man ‘arguments’ from the far right.

  141. Aislander, do you still beat your husband?

  142. aislander says:

    sumn people should consult a dictionary once in a while…

  143. aislander, since you don’t believe in the Supreme Court powers to determine constitutionality, then my former question remains about revolting.

    What do you think we should do to get rid of the “tyrrany of the majority” on the Supreme Court? Should we make all decisions by them have to be 2/3, or perhaps unanimous, for their decisions to mean anything?

    We already have tyrrany of the minority in the Senate, should we just expand deadlock to all of our democratic processes?

    I know that the framers were against transfers without due process and taxes without representation, but they gave Congress enormous taxation powers. Also, since the framers gave a way to amend the Constitution, the 16th Amendment expands Congress’ taxing authorities to an income tax through Constitutional methods.

    Many Supreme Court cases have affirmed that Congress may tax about anything for any reason it deems fit. “General welfare” has been interpreted by SCOTUS as whatever Congress says it means. The only taxes it has rejected as unconstitutional are those that directly tax a state, impair a state’s ability to collect its own taxes or regulates trade that is solely within the boundaries of one state.

  144. aislander, again I point you to middle school civics classes for the answer to your question of when does something become against the law:

    “This is all I want to know: at what point does that happen? Exactly”

    It happens when a duly appointed or elected official says it happened and that decision is upheld by appropriate legal processes. For example, if a traffic cop says you broke the law, then you can accept that decision and pay hyour fine or you go through the process and dispute it.

    Any administrative or legal decision can be brought to court or to trial for a final decision. If appealed in court it happens when a judge or a jury decides, depending on the type of case, and, if under appeal, when the last appellate court available says it happened.

    For your hypothetical case on “absorbing” your neighbors land into your newly incorporated town, it happens at exactly the moment a court says it was legal or illegal use of state laws on incorporation procedures, extraterritorial jurisdiction of incorporated cities, and on eminent domain.

    Our nation has remained stable, secure and prosperous because (almost) all of us agree to abide by the decisions reached using these constitutional methods instead of using personal revenge, honor killings, destruction of property, or other methods when we feel the courts and the processes did not go in our favor.

    You included “moral”, but morality doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not a law is broken. It may affect the punishment phase, or the recompense, but not the guilt or innocence phase.

    Is there a purpose to your continuation of pretend ignorance, or are you really ignorant of such basic civic lessons?

  145. Thank you tuddo for expanding upon by terse (and rather flippant) response to aislander’s attempt to bait with straw.

    To expand upon my brief response – the numbers needed in this country are:

    218 Members of Congress
    51 Senators
    1 President
    5 Supreme Court Justices.

  146. aislander says:

    So…tuddo…you’re saying government can do things because it can do things. That has been the rationale of coercive regimes throughout history.

    Socrates’ epigram about the unexamined life applies also to systems of governance, and I am trying to understand the point at which we, as a people and a nation, pivoted from our understanding that converting the property of others to our own use or that of our clients is an immoral act to the insane idea that it represents some higher morality, if only enough of us agree to do it.

  147. So, ailander, do you still beat your husband?

  148. aislander says:

    Shhh. The adults are trying to talk…

  149. I have another question for you ailander, in your dream world of limited Govt, how would you answer your own question?
    With little or no regulations and no big scary evil Govt to enforce the ones there would be, who would stop anyone from ‘absorbing’ your land if they wanted to?

    Cake and eat it to?

  150. “Shhh. The adults are trying to talk…”

    When all else fails, the right always goes to the personal, juvenile attacks.
    It’s predictable as the tides.

  151. aislander says:

    beerBoy: I find it hilarious that you imply my line of questioning represents a straw-man argument when it is nowhere close to the definition of one, and it is even funnier that you join your “special” coreligionist in doing so.

    HERE is a straw man, courtesy of tuddo:

    “Our nation has remained stable, secure and prosperous because (almost) all of us agree to abide by the decisions reached using these constitutional methods instead of using personal revenge, honor killings, destruction of property, or other methods when we feel the courts and the processes did not go in our favor.”

    The obvious implication is that, if my line of questioning delegitimizes the ability of government to take from some Americans in order to give to others, the above scenario will result.

    Set up (from whole cloth) and knocked down. THAT was a straw-man argument…

  152. Answer the questions ailander.

  153. aislander says:

    I’m reposting this to get my point past the detritus that followed the original:

    So…tuddo…you’re saying government can do things because it can do things. That has been the rationale of coercive regimes throughout history.

    Socrates’ epigram about the unexamined life applies also to systems of governance, and I am trying to understand the point at which we, as a people and a nation, pivoted from our understanding that converting the property of others to our own use or that of our clients is an immoral act to the insane idea that it represents some higher morality, if only enough of us agree to do it.

  154. aislander, if you are serious, and not just baiting here, I read a book about eminent domain. It is like a graduate student’s exploration, but it has some good historical development of the powers of the “sovereign” (which our founders divided into the branches of government and limited through the Constitution). I disagree with some of her conclusions, but that is not unusual.

    The book: http://www.amazon.com/Before-Eminent-Domain-History-Expropriation/dp/0807833533

    Here is a much shorter history in an article published by the State Bar of Michigan.
    http://www.michbar.org/publiccorp/pdfs/fall06.pdf

    In both, you will see that seizing private property for public good was a long-established power before colonization, and the colonies continued the practice, often without any payment or recompense. It wasn’t clear until the 5th Amendment that there needed to be any payment, and seizures of property for public works was common.

    What the Constitution did in the 5th Amendment was not ban the practice but said that there must be due process and just compensation. It was a long-standing power considered inherent to a government. The Bill of Rights limited the inherent power of the government on taking property, but did not grant it because it was always there.

    One of the basic ideas thaty the colonists brought over, and almost all governmments around the world have always believed, is that real property, land especially, is the government’s to give or take. We see that in the land grants, our assumption that all lands are federal lands until sold or given away by treaties and grants or sales.

    Your assumption that we have always thought that “converting the property of others to our own use or that of our clients is an immoral act” is totally false. English Common Law which forms the basis of our Constitution, tradition, history and written documents outlining powers of government, like the Magna Carta have always given the power of eminent domain and seizing of property to the government.

    Our framers were wise enough to put limitaions on that power in the 5th Amendment, but they did not remove it.

    With the right wing of the SCOTUS, we have seen a move toward corporate takeover of government powers, and the Kell decision is one more 5-4 decision that moves us closer to corporate rule. The Republican Party has been very clever in using social wedge issues to gain power, but then move in for the kill to give us government for and by the corporations.

    That is why I quite being a Republican and turned independent when I was part of the the Rove-Cheney Bush regime in Texas. I saw the handwriting on the wall. No more individual rights but corporate rights, big government intruding into personal decisions and corporate takeover of government.

  155. aislander says:

    God, tuddo: you are very talented at missing the point. I already stated I was not concerned with eminent domain, but I’ll expand on why I’m not concerned if I have to. And it appears I have to.

    Government has a right to tax and it has a right to annex property for the use of the community, BUT NOT TO GIVE TO INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS, which is why I disagree with Kelo.

    Arrogating the property of individuals AND corporations through taxation or annexation when the use is NOT for the community, but to transfer to other individuals or corporations, has always been viewed as immoral.

    But now it isn’t, and I want to know WHEN and HOW it became moral to take property for purposes that do not benefit the community as a whole.

  156. aislander says:

    And, tuddo, I’m referring to a DIRECT benefit to the community, such as police and fire protection, and national defense with the larger community, land for streets and highways, and NOT for imputed benefits such as palliating a revolutionary temper if bribes are not forthcoming…

  157. aislander, you keep saying eminent domain is not your point, but you keep using it as your example. Morality has nothing to do with the law. Get over it, It is either legal or illegal. It is a right or not a right.

    As I pointed out, government has always had a right to take property or to tax for whatever purposes it desires. The framers of the Constitution put limits on that power, but did not take it away.

    Deciding what benefits “the community as a whole” is a decision made by “the community as a whole” and that means, in our system, by electing representatives who will make their best decision – city council, county council, state reps, Congress, etc.

    Is it more “moral” to take land to build a roadway or an airport than a community center for the elderly? Is it more “moral” to take land to expand an overpass so commerce can be greater than it is to take land to build a new housing development? I do not think morality has anything to do with it.

    I think the Kell decision was wrong because I do not think taking private land and giving it to a private corporation is a public purpose, but the Supreme Court did. I think that the 5-4 decisions coming from the Supreme Court are bad for our “community as a whole”.

    The power we have as a community of people is to vote. That is one big reasons I will not vote for a corporatist Republican president who will have the power to put more activist judges on the court who will continue to decide corporate rights and the rights of big government are more important than individual rights.

  158. aislander says:

    Did you actually READ what I wrote? I’m talking about eminent domain because you and beerBoy brought it up and my take on it is the same as yours! Sheesh!

    To say that law is not about morality is purblind. Have you read Blackstone on law? Law is (should be) ALL about morality!

    The Founding Fathers said in their writings that people lend power to the government on their behalf, but are unable to give government powers they do not themselves possess as individuals.

    The people are barred from stealing, and, by the lights of the Founders, so is government.

  159. aislander says:

    In practical terms, morality and law do not always coincide, but the compulsion must always exist to bring them into concordance. That a hundred years ago or so, and since, laws have been enacted that conflict with personal and general morality is troubling to me, since that is “progress” in the wrong direction…

  160. Answer the questions ailander.

    Do you still beat your husband?

    in your dream world of limited Govt, how would you answer your own question?
    With little or no regulations and no big scary evil Govt to enforce the ones there would be, who would stop anyone from ‘absorbing’ your land if they wanted to?

  161. aislander,

    In saying that “morality” doesn’t have anything to do with what our elected officials decide to use their right of taking property through taxes or other means, I am trying to stay away from the argument that we are supposed to agree or disagree what is moral to reach decisions that are good for our nation.

    I think allowing a woman to choose what happens to her body and her health care is moral; taking that right away from her is immoral. I think ignoring science in decisions about our environment is immoral. I think denying gays the right to marry is immoral. I think misusing the Bible to defend destruction of our environment is immoral.

    However, the only power I have to influence other people is through free speech and my vote.

    If a state decides to ban birth control or abortion and the Supreme Court says it is legal, then it is the law of the land, whether I think it is immoral or moral. If the state allows gay marriage, then it is legal, whether it is moral or immoral in people’s minds. If the Supreme Court determines that an individual not part of a militia can brandish weapons around in public, then it is legal, whether anybody thinks it is moral or immoral. If the Supreme Court decides that interracial marriage is a right, then it doesn’t matter that some people think it is immoral.

    I think it is immoral to take my taxes and destroy our environment by subsidizing big oil and by building bigger and bigger freeways and not building high speed rail and developing mass trainsit options. You, I imagine, feel that it is theft to take your money for mass transit.

    We can use “morality” in our individual votes, and our representatives can use morality in their votes, too, but whether our taxes get used for things I consider immoral or you consider immoral, and if they are legal, then the only way is to vote for our side to represent us when those decisions are made.

    Just because you disagree with the use of some of your taxes does not make it theft or stealing. You can call it that, but it doesn’t make it so, unless it is so defined in the law.

    The main thing missing from your I(and many consdervative’s) arguments is that “we” are the government. It is not something outside of us. When the founders said we lend power to the government on our behalf, then it means we the people are in charge, and we do that by electing representatives. If we the people through our representative government say it is not theft to tax and use the taxes for certain things, then it is not theft.

    If you believe certain uses of your tax money are theft, then write an initiative and get the people to agree with you or start a lobbying group to get Congress to agree with you (that costs a lot of money since you will be competing for attention with big-dollar corporations).

  162. aislander says:

    That is precisely why the Founding Fathers placed limits on government, purposely did not set up a pure democracy, and why they did their best to make Federal transfer payments unconstitutional…

    I purposely started this discussion by describing a scenario in which compassionate people took from someone who had what someone else obviously needed and asked at what point it became moral to that, with respect to the number of people required who approved of doing so.

    No one has provided such a number, and you say that law and morality are unrelated, so I must infer that you believe that welfare (and taxation to provide welfare), for example, while legal, is immoral. Right?

  163. aislander, no I do not believe various “welfare” programs are immoral. Quite the opposite. In a simple society, neighbors provided for neighbors, and pitched in through various means to assist each other. I believe that we are doing the same through various assistance programs. I believe in the pursuit of happiness and the general welfare of all of the people of the USA.

    I certanly don’t understand what number you are looking for. Only in a dictatorship is a single person a “sovereign” who gets to take property of others, and even if a group of people get together and call themselves a government, they are not, unless they are delegated certain powers by a sovereign.

    In the USA we follow English Common Law as our basis for understanding and determining the sovereign powers of government. Our Constitution says that we must expressly define the powers of the Federal government in the Constitution, and all other sovereign powers are placed in the hands of the states. Taxation is one such sovereign power that is expressly given to the Federal government as well as retained by the states.

    Taxation or taking of property has never been a power of an individual. No where does it state in the Constitution that an individual has any sovereign powers or any authority to take any one else’s property.

    An individual never has been a sovereign nation or a sovereign state in the USA or been delegated such powers by the people, so an individual has never had the power to take the property of others.

    In our nation we have a sovereign federal government and a sovereign state. Cities, counties, etc, are not sovereign entities in our system, but have had certain authorities delegated to them by the sovereign powers of the state to them, like certain taxes.

    (We also have other sovereign entities, like certain tribes, so they have certain rights, too).

    Your analogy of individuals stealing from other individuals is a false analogy with no merit. If one does not understand the difference between the powers of a sovereign nation and the illegal actions of an individual, then again, I say go back to middle school civics classes.

  164. aislander says:

    It’s not a “false analogy,” at all, tuddo. In the system you described in your first paragraph, the “pitching in to help” was voluntary. I believe it is obscene to arrogate the power to “volunteer” the substance of other people for services from which they do not benefit.

    I believe that is bad for those whose property is taken, bad for those to whom it is given, and bad for the nation in a number of ways.

    That is immoral and I truly believe the Founders tried to make it illegal, too…

  165. aislander demands other answer her questions but attempts to insult anyone who asks him a simple question.
    How republican of her.

  166. aislander says:

    beerBoy: I’m certain YOU know that “simple” has a couple of different meanings,…

  167. aislander, as I said, what is “moral” to some may not be to others. Welfare is legal and Constitutional, taxing for any purpose Congress so deems is legal and Constitutional, so it is not “theft” to take your tax money for it. Period. End.

    Fight for your candidates and I’ll fight for mine (figuratively fighting).

    That’s the American way.

  168. aislander says:

    The American way is to live by the Constitution as intended and amended. It was never amended to allow wealth transfers…

    “If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.”
    Bergh, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p.342

    The first Democrat, no?

  169. aislander says:

    “The Utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of the wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution] are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.”
    William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, volume I, p.154

  170. Vote for who you want to get rid of welfare.

    The Supreme Court has already tested the Social Security Act and Medicaid and other programs that people have claimed as unconstitutional. They are constitutional no matter what quotes you come up with.

    If the Supreme Court says that the health care reform act is unconstitutional, it will be. If they say it is constitutional, it will be. Some people with agree and some will disagree. That’s America.

  171. aislander says:

    So…the Supreme Court allows something the framers of the Constitution clearly opposed and you are all right with that because it follows a process?

    I’ve always thought that, for lefties, the end justifies the means, so thanks for validating my take on you guys.

    In any case, no one has pointed to the pivot point at which taking other people’s stuff became a virtue rather than a disgrace. The difference between the mob in the street that had no compunctions about robbing someone due to his apparent wealth and the mob in the voting booths who have no compunctions about voting themselves the property of someone else WAS our system of government.

  172. aislander says:

    There IS one difference between the mob in the street and the mob in the voting booths: the former use knives and guns and the latter use the government…

  173. aislander, the framers allowed for changing the Constitution. Just because you personally don’t agree with something doesn’t mean it isn’t democracy in action.

    Does everything have to apss the “aislander” test? Is that in the Constitution somewhere that I missed?

    Your remarks show definite proof of your hatred and disdain for our form of government. You would have made a good Southerner during the discussions where they pushed for the ability to vote by only good Christian, white, male, Protestant land owners.

    I think you’ve answered my question from above, and the answer is “revolting”.

  174. aislander says:

    The framers allowed for the Constitution to be changed by AMENDMENT, a long and difficult process, NOT by judicial fiat, a dictatorial one.

    There has been a lot of talk about judicial activism on the right, particularly with regard to the Kelo decision and Bush v Gore, but those were both examples of interpreting existing law and the Constitution as written.

    The creation of an ability to take the property of people for the use of other people is not only judicial activism, but it flies in the face of the foundational principles of the country.

    The document that formed the nation was not the Constitution, but the Declaration, and the “happiness” referred to in that document is the accumulation, retention, and use of property.

  175. aislander says:

    I meant Citizens United rather than Kelo…

  176. boy, aislander, you really do need middle school again, don’t you? We declared ourselves independent of Great Britain. The Declaration did not form a nation but said that the colonies are “Free and Independent States” …and “as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

    We then formed a nation, uniting all the states into the United States with the Articles of Confederation (and Perpetual Union). However, many of the powers of the sovereign and independent states were not given up or shared with the centralized Continental Congress, so we had a very weak central authority. The states agreed to the Constitution to centralize and legitimize the central authority of the Federal Government. That is really basic stuff.

    When the Supreme Court goes your way, it is “interpreting”, when it goes against you it is “activism”.

    Your idea that “property” is equal to “happiness” has been debunked so many times your claim makes you look like you are living in 1774 when those words were being discussed and defined.

    As I pointed out, the Southern plantation owners were the ones equating “property” rights as all that needed to be discussed in terms of the reasons for a government besides the common defense of the nation.

    The middle states and New England compromised with the Southerners on that idea in the Confederation, but soon they outnumbered them, outflanked them and ultimately got them to agree to a much broader purpose statement and role for a strong central authority.

    Alexander Hamilton’s view of the taxing and spending authority of the Federal Government prevailed in the early years and in the Supreme Court decisions that allowed taxes to be spent on anything Congress deemed. And his view prevails today. It has been settled law for many decades now, so all of your arguments are moot.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html

  177. aislander says:

    I realize it is “settled law,” tuds, but that doesn’t mean it is right and it doesn’t mean that the process by which it became settled should not be re-examined.

    All I’M trying to do is to get some people to re-examine their beliefs. Stealing is wrong no matter how it is rationalized, and I flatter myself that I am persuasive enough to open some minds about the proper use of tax revenues. We wouldn’t BE in the fiscal straits we inhabit if not for governmentally-mandated charity.

    As for the Declaration’s having formed the nation, you’re splitting hairs since the Articles of Confederation were begun at exactly the same time as the Declaration…

  178. ailander, maybe YOU need to re-examine YOUR beliefs.
    Ever think of that?

    Tuddo, my hat is off to you, nice work!

  179. “We wouldn’t BE in the fiscal straits we inhabit if not for governmentally-mandated charity.”

    Are you seriously try to say that the only debt we have and the economic situation we are in is due to what you whiners call ‘charity’??
    Come on, even you can’t be that stupid.

  180. Sole purpose of the language in the Decaration of Independence (and eventual result): declaring independence and individual sovereignty for the 13 colonies

    Sole purpose and result of the language in the Articles of Confederation: formation of a central authority for the united colonies and organizing an additional sovereign state called the United States

    Not splitting hairs at all. Even though the ideas were discussed at the same time by the same people, if it weren’t for the states all agreeing to the Articles of Confederation, we would have had 13 separate independent countries, but not for long. Common defense was only in the Articles, not the Declaration.

  181. aislander says:

    Hmmm. You bring to bear all that sophistry just because you wish to exclude some inconvenient words and the the concepts they imply from the current discussion and from consideration by the courts. Right, tuddo?

    And, speaking of inconvenient, you conveniently forgot to mention the words, “these united colonies” before the “free and independent states” thing…

  182. aislander says:

    But, speaking of settled law, the canonization of “precedent” is a product of the early twentieth century–not coincidentally AKA the progressive era. Before that, adherence to the Constitution was the main test of judicial rulings.

    I’d like to see a return to that standard, since this dogged devotion to precedent merely sets mistakes in concrete. If we’re going to make major changes in our philosophy of governance, those deserve more than one test.

    Doncha think?

  183. aislander says:

    Here John Adams equates property with happiness:

    “All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”
    (George A. Peek, Jr., ed., The Political Writings of John Adams, Liberal Arts Press, New York, 1954, p.96.)

    That various lefty politicians and judges have denied that the Founding Fathers meant what they meant is not my fault nor that of the Founders…

    By the way, tuddo, I would think that if you wanted to know the meaning of words written in, say, 1774, you would use the definitions of those words as they were understood at that time.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0