Thread: Anyone want to predict the outcome of the health care case?

Originally Posted by adaher

That's because of a foolish amendment to the Constitution that gave Congress unlimited and completely arbitrary tax power. Before the income tax amendment, Congress' taxation was limited and had to be uniform, which prevented the kind of favoritism and punishment through the tax system that Congress uses today.

What about local property and school taxes?
State taxes?
You need not even include federal taxes.

We have various levels that infringe upon us.

Many states have tax limitation amendments. We need one at the federal level.

Originally Posted by adaher

Many states have tax limitation amendments. We need one at the federal level.

Now when federal taxes are as low as they have been in 80 years, limiting taxes is the answer?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

This lie has been said so many times I have to address it. No one is saying government never offered health benefits for its employees. That is not the issue. The issue is the government dictating buying something as a condition to live in the US.

I guess that went right over your head.
We have Medicare, which is single payer, we have the VA which is government run health care, and the government began this in 1798, with the Marine Hospital system.
The Marine Hospitals were not for government employees, they were for merchant seamen, whose employers were required to withhold 1% of their pay and send it to the federal government where it was used for the relief of sick and disabled seamen, and to build the Marine Hospitals.

Originally Posted by goober

Now when federal taxes are as low as they have been in 80 years, limiting taxes is the answer?

I agree with you, taxes do need to go up, although not tax rates. We spend 6% of GDP on tax deductions, eliminating deductions alone would get revenues up to 21% of GDP, higher than they've been since WWII.

But the government shouldn't be able to abuse its authority even in theory. In theory, Congress could tax any group they want at 110% and then jail them for noncompliance. Congress already uses the tax system to reward and punish. That authority needs to have boundaries set as the founders originally did.

Originally Posted by goober

Now when federal taxes are as low as they have been in 80 years, limiting taxes is the answer?

I know, it's such a sad statement of our times.

Taxation right now in America is 14.9% of GDP. It's sposed to be in the high 17's. It was nearly 18% of GDP under Ronald Reagan.

Conservatives in America are Democrats and Democrats in America are conservatives, since one side says America should be the best but nobody should pay for it, while the other side wishes to pay for it.

Total reversal situation going on.

Anybody that believes taxes are too low is seriously misinformed. The solution to the debt crisis is right in front of us, but total ignorance by people who now think of themselves as conservatives continue to deny the truth.

As for health care, it's still going down, and for some strange reason I think the President is okay with that.

Originally Posted by goober

Now when federal taxes are as low as they have been in 80 years, limiting taxes is the answer?

Not unless it is matched with some sort of spending limit legislation at the same time. It would be asinine to legislate a limit to one part of the equation then ignore the other. Just about anyone should be able to see the potential danger in basically legislating a mechanism to continued debt by limiting taxes only. We would just continue the mess we are in right now due to tax revenue being too low and spending levels being too high. Federal, State, or otherwise does not change the issue.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Not unless it is matched with some sort of spending limit legislation at the same time. It would be asinine to legislate a limit to one part of the equation then ignore the other. Just about anyone should be able to see the potential danger in basically legislating a mechanism to continued debt by limiting taxes only. We would just continue the mess we are in right now due to tax revenue being too low and spending levels being too high. Federal, State, or otherwise does not change the issue.

The federal government needs the flexibility to act, and that means it should be able to raise taxes, spend what it needs to spend and borrow money if needed.

What is clear is that as societies become advanced, governments do more, and need higher taxes to pay for it, it would be a shame to relegate the US to being one of the less advanced nations in the future because we were unable operate with a 22nd century style government, although the demilitarization would be a huge benefit.

I haven't read anything as thoughtful and astute about the health care debate before the SCOTUS than this piece right here:

Uwe E. Reinhardt: The Supreme Court and the National Conversation on Health-Care Reform - NYTimes.com

"...Asked in an interview in Health Affairs in August 2010 how he could defend the mandate to be insured to Swiss citizens, Switzerland’s former secretary of health, Dr. Thomas Zeltner, responded:

"That’s easy. We will not let people suffer and die when they need health care. The Swiss believe that in return, individuals owe it to society to make provision ahead of time for their health care when they fall seriously ill. At that point, they may not have enough money to pay for it. So we consider the health-insurance mandate to be a form of socially responsible civic conduct. In Switzerland, “individual freedom” does not mean that you should be free to live irresponsibly and freeload from others, as you would put it."

Part of American exceptionalism, which we feel sets us apart from other nations, seems to be that Americans believe they have a moral right to critically needed health care, whether or not they can pay for it, but also believe that they should be free not to make financial provision for that event beforehand."

Kinda sums up what Republicans used to say before Obama came along and agreed with them.

Originally Posted by goober

What is clear is that as societies become advanced, governments do more, and need higher taxes to pay for it, it would be a shame to relegate the US to being one of the less advanced nations in the future because we were unable operate with a 22nd century style government, although the demilitarization would be a huge benefit.

That's not exactly clear. You are taking a very short term historical trend and extrapolating it to the future. But with many nations reaching the limit of how much they can borrow and tax and spend, it is just as likely that future generations will demand less from government. People of the 22nd century may regard the period from 1945-2025 as an aberration, when a novel view of the role of government became mainstream, and was quickly discarded when it proved to be unsustainable.

Every generation tends to consider its beliefs to be accepted by future generations, but basic logic and history suggests that future generations will laugh at some of the things we believe today. I predict that activist government will be one of those things, although basic elements of it will probably survive, such as caring for the aged and poor children.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I like how radical right-wing court is used synonymous with constitutional. If the courts really only ruled on the Constitution your eyes would probably bleed from perceived uber right-wingism.

bush v gore citizens united and ledbetter had nothing at all to do with the constition. they were nakedly activist political decisions meant to benefit those wealthy interests that republicans deem worthy and to punish those who vote dem.

Originally Posted by goober

Now when federal taxes are as low as they have been in 80 years, limiting taxes is the answer?

Taxes are higher than anytime since 2007, when the govt took 2.4 trillion from people. 80 years ago, they were taking less than 100 billion. So taxes are 24x times higher than 80 years ago.

-adjusted for inflation

Originally Posted by timj219

bush v gore citizens united and ledbetter had nothing at all to do with the constition. they were nakedly activist political decisions meant to benefit those wealthy interests that republicans deem worthy and to punish those who vote dem.

I agree with Bush v. Gore, at least the second part. The first part of the decision, that Florida's recount violated equal protection, was decided 7-2, not 5-4.

Citizens United upheld the 1st amendment. Ledbetter wasn't about the Constitution, it was just interpreting a Congressional statute. Congress screwed up the law. Should SCOTUS have ruled how you wanted even though the law said something else?