Repealing Obamacare

[Sedatedfork]

@Denny Crane -- Not necessarily disagreeing with that -- unless I have subsidized older people in my life and now you are saying you are going to change the system so that I get screwed with no Social Security and no Medicare (that I have been paying for years with taxes) and/or now I have to pay outrageous health insurance premiums when I get older and the Millenials get to skate. That's unfair to me. Incidentally, you should be Trump's translator! Next G20 meeting. Trump says something in Trump. Denny translates from Trump to English. Russian Translator translates from English to Russian. Success!

 

[Denny Crane]

He's not a polished politician, that's for sure. Are you opposed to the things he's said he wants? Insurance for all. Better insurance than we have now. Not touching SS or Medicare. Etc.

?

If they adopted my proposal, everyone would have access to health care, regardless of having insurance or not, regardless of having medicare or not.

 

[Denny Crane]

As far as SS goes, the government is on the hook to make the payments. We've seen many local governments get into serious trouble over these kinds of liabilities. Illinois is currently in the news.

Obama ran up $10T in additional debt. The Fed kept interest rates near 0% so the interest payments on that debt were low. Low, but still significant money.

Think about what this money would buy:



As interest rates rise (and they need to and will), the interest expense will increase accordingly. If rates double from ~1% to ~2%, that debt payment turns into $800B and the government doesn't take in enough to pay that and SS and Medicare and Defense and Highways, and all the rest. Without adding more to the debt.

Tax the rich isn't the answer. They're the ones buying the debt instruments (T-Bills, etc.). That $375B is being paid TO THE RICH.

There's real risk the government will not be able to pay for things we consider important, due to pressure from the debt payments.

 

[Sedatedfork]

He's not a polished politician, that's for sure. Are you opposed to the things he's said he wants? Insurance for all. Better insurance than we have now. Not touching SS or Medicare. Etc.

?

If they adopted my proposal, everyone would have access to health care, regardless of having insurance or not, regardless of having medicare or not.

I'm not opposed to the goals. But so far he has overpromised on everything in his administration, and his goals are completely unobtainable. He has no idea what he is doing with health care. Absolutely none.

Here is what he said a year ago. "They can have everything!"

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not opposed to the goals. But so far he has overpromised on everything in his administration, and his goals are completely unobtainable. He has no idea what he is doing with health care. Absolutely none.

Here is what he said a year ago. "They can have everything!"

CNN is raving about Trump having a great day yesterday. "He's showing leadership on health care."

As far as the video and promises, I would prefer to hold him to his promises. I think he's right about ObamaCare being a disaster in the long term.

 

[barfo]

CNN is raving about Trump having a great day yesterday. "He's showing leadership on health care."

Fake news.

barfo

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Apparently Denny needs better messaging:

 

[crandc]

CNN is saying Trump shows leadership? Or the former Trump campaign staffer now a CNN commentator saying so? Not the same thing. How someone shows leadership by 1) having no idea about health insurance 2) not understanding the subject is complex and 3) having three positions in 36 hours is a mystery.

 

[Denny Crane]

Apparently Denny needs better messaging:

If 62% of the people want slavery, should we have slavery?

 

[MarAzul]

If 62% of the people want slavery, should we have slavery?

We have it. The 21st century version. It is far cheaper to import labor and pay them the minimum wage, than it is to own them and be on the hook for taking care of them and their off spring.

 

[barfo]

We have it. The 21st century version. It is far cheaper to import labor and pay them the minimum wage, than it is to own them and be on the hook for taking care of them and their off spring.

MarAzul says Minimum Wage is Slavery. Moves to Portland, grows hipster beard, joins Antifa. Film at 11.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

MarAzul says Minimum Wage is Slavery. Moves to Portland, grows hipster beard, joins Antifa. Film at 11.

barfo

Ha! Not quite barf. What I actually said was, barfo has a mind that could compete with a barnacle.

 

[Minstrel]

If 62% of the people want slavery, should we have slavery?

Wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. That's the entire point of a Constitutional republic--to outline expressed rights that can't be abridged by legislation.

How to tax and how to allocate taxpayer money is certainly something that society as a whole decides.

 

[Denny Crane]

Wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. That's the entire point of a Constitutional republic--to outline expressed rights that can't be abridged by legislation.

How to tax and how to allocate taxpayer money is certainly something that society as a whole decides.

Most of the progressive agenda doesn't pass constitutional muster. That's why FDR tried to pack the supreme court.

Even the income tax was not what the founders wanted, but at least that was done through an amendment.

What you have is exactly what they rightfully feared. Government enacting laws to direct money from the taxpayer to corporations (in this case, insurance companies).

I find it both laughable and two faced when the same people whining about the 1% are happy about directing the government to write actual checks to the 1%.

 

[Minstrel]

Most of the progressive agenda doesn't pass constitutional muster.

Agree to disagree. Even the modern, right-learning court that has no FDR appointments didn't consider the greatest modern overreach (in the eyes of conservatives like you) of the ACA to be unconstitutional.

And I do hope you're not trotting out that woefully ignorant "the founders were against taxation" idea that Internet libertarians seem fixated on ("Remember the Boston tea party?!"). The colonies were against taxation without representation. Taxes with representation are within The Founders' (hallowed be thy name, of course) grand plan.

 

[Denny Crane]

Agree to disagree. Even the modern, right-learning court that has no FDR appointments didn't consider the greatest modern overreach (in the eyes of conservatives like you) of the ACA to be unconstitutional.

And I do hope you're not trotting out that woefully ignorant "the founders were against taxation" idea that Internet libertarians seem fixated on ("Remember the Boston tea party?!"). The colonies were against taxation without representation. Taxes with representation are within The Founders' (hallowed be thy name, of course) grand plan.

Right leaning courts rely on precedent. The current court did not rule on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, but rather whether the Court should be involved in the first place. ("Elections have consequences.")

The damage has been done.

The constitution expressly forbade direct taxation. That would be an income tax, or any other payment by individuals to the federal government. There was all that time from 1776 until 1913 when there was no federal income tax.

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/2B34C7FBDA41D9DA8525730800067017?OpenDocument

Direct tax" appears twice in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Article I, section 2 provides, in relevant part, that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." That is part of the infamous three-fifths clause, or "federal ratio," under which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a free person for purposes of determining the size of a state's congressional delegation, the number of members of the Electoral College a state can elect, and the apportionment of federal direct taxes.

Article I, section 9 provides, in relevant part: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Because of that apportionment requirement, application of "direct tax" as it related to specific taxes has been considered by the Supreme Court in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, and it led to the adoption of the 16th Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in the court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). The amendment was adopted on February 3, 1913.

 

[Minstrel]

According to your own links, direct taxes weren't forbidden, they just had to be in proportion to the census. The 16th amendment removed that requirement.

Income taxes weren't prohibited before then:

During the War of 1812, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander J. Dallas made the first public proposal for an income tax, but it was never implemented.[4] The Congress did introduce an income tax to fund the Civil War through the Revenue Act of 1861.[5] It levied a flat tax of three percent on annual income above $800. This act was replaced the following year with the Revenue Act of 1862, which levied a graduated tax of three to five percent on income above $600 and specified a termination of income taxation in 1866.

So income taxes were perhaps not popular, but they certainly weren't forbidden.

 

[MarAzul]

The constitution expressly forbade direct taxation.

So income taxes were perhaps not popular, but they certainly weren't forbidden.

Wow! Spoken like a progressive with an aversion to the Constitution or reading it. Direct Taxes including the illy defined income tax are indeed prohibited until the 16th made "Income" taxable directly on the people instead of the States.

At least barfo is more honest, in what he thinks is a worthy use for the Constitution.

I'll consider doing that, once I've used up my copy of the constitution.

 

[Minstrel]

Wow! Spoken like a progressive with an aversion to the Constitution or reading it. Direct Taxes including the illy defined income tax are indeed prohibited until the 16th made "Income" taxable directly on the people instead of the States.

You'll have to take up your objections with the Congress that passed income tax legislation during the Civil War (before the 16th amendment) and the Supreme Court that didn't rule it unconstitutional. I'm sure they'll be fascinated.

 

[MarAzul]

You'll have to take up your objections with the Congress that passed income tax legislation during the Civil War (before the 16th amendment) and the Supreme Court that didn't rule it unconstitutional. I'm sure they'll be fascinated.

Yes, Imagine that!
Lincoln had suspended Habeas Corpus and was jailing people under the sedition laws. Who the hell was going to bring a little matter of unlawful income tax before the court?
Lincoln was a piece of work worthy of study. The Constitution put no barriers in his path.

 

[Minstrel]

Yes, Imagine that!
Lincoln had suspended Habeas Corpus and was jailing people under the sedition laws. Who the hell was going to bring a little matter of unlawful income tax before the court?
Lincoln was a piece of work worthy of study. The Constitution put no barriers in his path.

Let me guess--you feel Lincoln was our worst President.

 

[barfo]

Since conservatives now believe that Russia is our friend and Abe Lincoln was a traitor, I've got some suggestions for them for further policy positions:

We fought on the wrong side in WWI and WWII
North Korea is our friend and we should sell arms to them
Canada is evil
Joe McCarthy and Hoover were unfairly maligned


barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Let me guess--you feel Lincoln was our worst President.

I would say that no other President has ignored the Constitution as blatantly. No other President has started a civil war.

So you see, not needing and amendment to collect income tax is small change where Lincoln is concerned.

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter

 

[Rastapopoulos]

 

[Rastapopoulos]

 

[Rastapopoulos]

 

[Denny Crane]

According to your own links, direct taxes weren't forbidden, they just had to be in proportion to the census. The 16th amendment removed that requirement.

Income taxes weren't prohibited before then:



So income taxes were perhaps not popular, but they certainly weren't forbidden.

The Feds taxed the states. The states raised moneyhow they saw fit.

California, with 10% of the population, would pay 10% of the money the Feds needed to raise.

That's how it worked.

I'd be fine if it went back to that method.

 

[barfo]

The Feds taxed the states. The states raised moneyhow they saw fit.

California, with 10% of the population, would pay 10% of the money the Feds needed to raise.

That's how it worked.

I'd be fine if it went back to that method.

That would certainly be interesting.

Tax rates would have to more than double for many of the red states; people in places like NY and MA would get a big tax cut. CA is about the average already, so no effect for you.
Oregon is below average, and I'd need to pay about 33% more.

The result, I would guess, is that it would be harder to make ends meet in rural states and you'd see increased migration to the cities.

barfo

 

[dead247]

 

[Denny Crane]

That would certainly be interesting.

Tax rates would have to more than double for many of the red states; people in places like NY and MA would get a big tax cut. CA is about the average already, so no effect for you.
Oregon is below average, and I'd need to pay about 33% more.

The result, I would guess, is that it would be harder to make ends meet in rural states and you'd see increased migration to the cities.

barfo

I am amused by your lack of understanding of how things work.

Why would the smaller states have their taxes go up?

And why would the feds be precluded from spending California's tax revenues toward brining electricity to Appalachia?