Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    Calling it a tax is the right thing to do. This SC decision, IMO, just lost Obama the presidency. I think the poll numbers as this sinks in, will show this to be true. Let's watch the poll numbers, as Romney shouts he will get this repealed. This could finish off the dems in congress, and I expect the repubs to take the senate back. Over this single issue. Romney needs to drive this home, as he just got my vote with that ruling this morning. I am dead serious. I will not vote for ACA and the vote in Nov is a vote for it, or against it, IMO. Whether the republicans will actually get it repealed is highly questionable though. Afterall, at the end of the day, its the health insurance's wet dream to make people buy their insurance.

    But understand, I am a liberal, in the old sense, and I want single payer, period. I want the for profit insurance companies to go the way of the Do Do bird. This ACA is nothing more than a con think tank plan. But I have to take Romney at his word, and the repubs at their word, although I have a sneaking suspicion they are simply lying.
    Its a lot more than a conservative think tank plan. The insurance mandate was considered AND DISCARDED by conservatives. Liberals ran with it. And of course the ACA is 2700 more pages than just one idea.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

      So, if the govt is requiring me to have health insurance, why am I still paying for Medicare?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

        Originally posted by Jason Marcel View Post
        Really, cause George Washington mandated hospital insurance for sailors and guns for Quakers, so it seems to me he's upholding the constitution.

        - - - Updated - - -



        I should have to participate though, because if I don't and I get in a car wreck and I'm in a coma and have no family or they don't have money, than YOU would have to participate in covering me.

        Individual mandate=Individual responsibility.

        Fairly conservative principle to me.
        Jason, do you know how this situation is going to go down? It'll be like this (in fact we are already seeing happen now, so how can you deny it).

        The family will lobby the doctors to keep the coma patient (I'm assuming a flat line EKG here), alive and on expensive life support because some miracle may come to pass and they'll wake up fully restored (understanding and acceptance of medical realities missing here).

        Since it's the government that's paying for it all (the tax payers actually), there will be no one to hold accountable for the bills. It'll just get submitted to the great government paper grinding machine, and eventually some congressional spending legislation to cover all the costs (yeah we all know how well they contain costs, don't we). Anyone actually taking the stand that these costs need to be held in line will not get a fair hearing, but will be awash in 'killing grandma' attack ads. Therefore, there will be no accountability for expenses. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. A sure formula to have expenses grow exponentially.

        So Individual mandate <> Individual responsibility. It's an abdication of responsibility, as you'll not be held to account for the expenses, especially if you don't have the money.

        So in actuality, those that have a little bit of money to pay for all this are going to get screwed, and the poor are going to get it for free (yeah, well they do that now at the emergency room), without controls or accountability (the mere fact that they have to sit though the emergency room is a cost deterrent - and now it'll be gone).

        This will go on until those that do pay for healthcare are driven to medical bankruptcy, at which point they'll get it for free from the government.

        SCOTUS has it right. The individual mandate is a tax, as if that makes it any better.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

          Originally posted by Danny View Post
          32 million people will have health care who otherwise wouldn't. Tens of thousands of lives will be saved. Anyone railing against this has a very messed up set of priorities, especially since the ACA was the Republican and conservative position to fix health care for the better part of 20 years.

          This is what happened today. It seems to shallow to pick political winners and losers when:



          - - - Updated - - -
          Just because you repeat it doesnt make it true. The ACA is more than just the mandate, which is the only part that was the conservative idea for one moment only, not 20 years.

          How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate - Forbes

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

            Originally posted by chassisman View Post
            You're in LA, that shouldn't be too tough. If illegal aliens can be government invisible, there has to be hope for us too.

            Here's what I see coming. If you don't buy the insurance, and don't pay the fines, the IRS will be the enforcement arm, and we all know what their tactics are...........frozen accounts, real estate liens, etc. Let's say they don't do those, buy then it's time for you to collect Social Security. ............minus the fines, interest, and penalties. This shit is going to ruin a lot of lives. How will young families will afford it when their employer takes the cheaper of the options, the fine/penalty for not providing a plan?
            I agree with that. There were millions of people who could not afford health insurance before all this and that isn't gong to change now just because the government can tax the holy fucking shit out of you for not having it. You'll here horror stories of the IRS breaking doors down and dragging families off to prison just for not having health insurance. The IRS don't give a fat rats ass about sob stories. They want their fucking money.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

              Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
              PROVE to me, empirically that there is a "free market" in health care/insurance/pharma and PROVE to me we have a "lack of regulation"

              Prove it.
              Sure no problem. Here are two examples:

              If you get sick your insurance company can tell you to go screw yourself. That is because there is nobody telling them that that is wrong.
              If you have a history of Cancer, all insurance companies can tell you thanks but no thanks. Go and die. That is because there is nobody telling them that that is wrong.


              Why are you advocating for these kind of egregious practices?

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                Originally posted by HonorsDaddy View Post
                As far as I'm concerned - the US died today. EVERYTHING may now be legally controlled as long as it is called a tax.
                That's the crux of the matter. Now the government can legislate that everyone will pay a "tax" if they don't walk around with anal beads inserted up their ass. Hey, they aren't making a law that says you have to have anal beads up your ass, you just have to pay more money if you don't.

                - - - Updated - - -

                Originally posted by Disillusioned_1 View Post
                Wow, I either expected them to punt, or to make a push to strike down some small part and claim the entire ACA was not severable.

                Its a victory for big government conservatives.
                WTF are you talking about? I didn't know that Obama, Pelosi, et all were considered conservatives. What a sham statement.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                  Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                  That's the crux of the matter. Now the government can legislate that everyone will pay a "tax" if they don't walk around with anal beads inserted up their ass. Hey, they aren't making a law that says you have to have anal beads up your ass, you just have to pay more money if you don't.

                  - - - Updated - - -



                  WTF are you talking about? I didn't know that Obama, Pelosi, et all were considered conservatives. What a sham statement.
                  Its just rhetoric. Big govt conservative is an oxymoron.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                    Originally posted by Jason Marcel View Post
                    Ummm....are you aware that health care spending since Obamacare has passed has slowed to its lowest levels in 50 years?

                    4% inflation the last couple years, far lower than at any other time in modern history.

                    The cost controls are starting to work already.

                    Your taxes won't "go crazy".
                    You're smoking crack or something. Please don't eat anyone's face off. Insurance has gone up a large amount since the passage of Obamacare.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                      Originally posted by Disillusioned_1 View Post
                      Its a great tax for republicans though, because the wealthy almost always have a good healthcare package so its a tax they won't be paying. This is a very regressive tax which seems to be what republicans favor in general.
                      Dude....this was a Democrat effort. It's called "Obamacare" for a reason. Is you're mind fucking exploding because of this regressive tax being pushed by Democrats due to cognitive dissidence?

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                        Originally posted by Jason Marcel View Post
                        I wonder why it is that selective invalidation of having to pay for anything is the in thing now with conservatives.

                        Just put everything on the credit card and then get thrown out and force Democrats to have to pay for it, right?
                        Ummm....really? The Democrat controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget in years. You're statement is amazingly ignorant of reality.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                          Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                          That's the crux of the matter. Now the government can legislate that everyone will pay a "tax" if they don't walk around with anal beads inserted up their ass. Hey, they aren't making a law that says you have to have anal beads up your ass, you just have to pay more money if you don't.
                          And all they have to do is make the "tax" large enough to force compliance.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                            Originally posted by Danny View Post
                            Sure no problem. Here are two examples:

                            If you get sick your insurance company can tell you to go screw yourself. That is because there is nobody telling them that that is wrong.
                            If you have a history of Cancer, all insurance companies can tell you thanks but no thanks. Go and die. That is because there is nobody telling them that that is wrong.


                            Why are you advocating for these kind of egregious practices?
                            Quit changing the subject...I'm not advocating for any practice, particularly big corporatism and corporate welfare...that would be you, since that is the end result of all reguation and programs like Obamacare, hence why the companies that supposedly will be hurt by them, lobby enthusiastically for them.

                            Your little examples did not prove we have a lack of regulation, not one bit. I mean show me we have no regulation, or at the very least "not enough". In fact, what is the cut off for "enough regulation", what is the bar for "not enough regulation", please explain this to me, because I PROMISE I can prove we have more than enough regulation and that we have NO FREE MARKET in healthcare, I can prove it. Can you prove your assertion? I guess not.

                            As for your little examples: WHY IS IT THAT THESE COMPANIES ARE SO "BIG" THAT THEY CAN JUST TELL YOU TO "DIE AND GET OUT" IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE CANCER?

                            Please answer this. I mean you liberals always make the same claims but NEVER answer the most obvious and basic question:

                            HOW do "big insurance" and "big pharma" and "big banks" BECOME "big businesses" that make outrageous profits and can dictate and do whatever they want? HOW DO THEY BECOME SO BIG AND "TOO BIG TO FAIL" IN THE FIRST PLACE?

                            Is it because as you claim "greed and the free market"? If so, prove to me there is a "free market" and a "lack of reguation". Furthermore, tell me how much regulation is "enough" in your all knowing opinion, then tell me how much isn't "enough".

                            OR is it as I claim, the government and its interference in the first place that CREATES THESE GIANT COMPANIES WITH THEIR CORPORATE WELFARE AND OUTRAGEOUS PROFITS. If you actually look at the history of regulation, you will VERY clearly see that the ONLY reason regulations were sought after by those in power was to create a controlled economy...and to do so by creating monopolies. That's it, plain and simple. Look at the reasons behind and the real world impact of ANY regulation or welfare program and what do you get? MONOPOLIES in stead of competition and a free market. Government backed and created monopolies. That is HOW big business becomes big business in the first place.

                            AND once business becomes "big business", it is MUCH easier to control the economy through these few puppets in each industry through the use of a tax code and regulatory scheme that not only benefits the "big companies" (they drive out ALL smaller competitors, thereby increasing their profits and market share - monopoly), but also benefits the government because it "controls" the economy AND makes A LOT more money from corporate taxes on there HUGE corporate profits than they otherwise would if 20 different companies competed for business, but overall made less profit than a giant like Goldman Sachs.

                            Seriously, all you liberals bitch about "big banks" and "fat cats" and fail to understand the immutable, obvious "duh" truth:

                            IT IS THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS INTERFENCE WITH REGULATIONS, TAXES, AND OTHER PROGRAMS THAT CAUSE THESE BIG COMPANIES AND THESE OUTRAGEOUS PROFITS TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

                            Don't believe me? Cool, I didn't think so, I'll back it up in my next post. In the mean time, look up the history of Wal-mart, specifically with regard to lobbyists. There was a time when Wally world had no lobbyists in Washington, then all the sudden over several years they became one of the biggest lobbying companies. Why? Look it up and you'll see what I am saying. Then look on Wikipedia and look at Wal-mart's profit (gross). Then look at how much they pay in taxes. Then look at net profit. What you will see very clearly is that Wal-mart lobbies for all kinds of regulations on itself. And pays out the ass, yet still makes huge profits, even more than BEFORE they started lobbying their asses off. Why? BECAUSE IT IS THE REGULATIONS THAT HELP THEM MAKE THE PROFITS!!!!!!!!!

                            They lobby, Congress makes new regulations, Wal-mart pays more, but drives out smaller businesses and markets, eating up their market share and profits on a local level (the regulations having driven up costs to small businesses so much, they had to close shop), there by giving Wal-mart even more of a monopoly, and increasing their profits (and therefore increasing government's profit from the taxes they get from Wal-mart's gross income). Oh, and they then control more of the economy too through a puppet-lackey that will do what they want. Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. That's all ANY regulation is, Obamacare, Bush's Medicare Part D, doesn't matter, they are all the same and have the same result.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                              Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                              That's the crux of the matter. Now the government can legislate that everyone will pay a "tax" if they don't walk around with anal beads inserted up their ass. Hey, they aren't making a law that says you have to have anal beads up your ass, you just have to pay more money if you don't.
                              That is the scary part and the following section of the decision is really concerning to me -

                              (c) Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to its population. Pp. 40–41.
                              That, to my reading, opens the door to a whole new realm of taxation. Right now we have Federal taxes on income and on consumption but this seems to open the door for taxes on refusal to consume a certain product or service. Under a ruling like this a tax could be levied, for example, on those who do not have car insurance....whether they own a car or not! This is a HUGE expansion of the Congressional power to tax under Article 1 §8 clause 1 from how it is currently used.

                              Combine that with this statement from the previous section of the decision -

                              Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS.
                              and things get scary. In a nutshell, this opens the door for pretty much any level of taxation on pretty much anything as subsection (c) of the decision completely blows the Direct Taxation clause off.

                              I'm going to hope and pray that in 2014 somebody chooses to take up issue with this aspect of the ruling as I find it incomprehensible that one section of the Constitution can supersede another section.
                              Last edited by Lutherf; 06-28-2012, 11:45 AM.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                                Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                                ahoy me hearties,

                                accordin' to me fellow commercial artist and good friend, Tsquare, the keelhaulin' 'o the ACA was supposed to be the tremor causin' a tsunami 'o ill fate that would envelop President Obama - ultimately causin' his downfall.

                                i mean, he declared this doom like 'twas prophecy, or so i thought.

                                does this mean that President Obama has the wind at his back now?

                                - MeadHallPirate
                                Maybe... it does mean that Obama's term cannot be called a complete waste of time.

                                Then again... the ACA and the largest tax increase on the middle class in history is not popular.

                                I wrote more about this earlier in the thread

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X