If Health Law Is Overturned, What Wil...

If Health Law Is Overturned, What Will Liberals Do?

There are 4935 comments on the thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com story from Mar 28, 2012, titled If Health Law Is Overturned, What Will Liberals Do?. In it, thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com reports that:

If the Supreme Court strikes down all or part of President Obama 's health care law , it will have unraveled a legislative compromise that many liberals had viewed with suspicion from the beginning.

In one of the ironies of recent politics, Mr. Obama was a late convert to the merits of the individual mandate that now appears to be in danger of being declared unconstitutional.

But the president’s embrace of the mandate — and his willingness to abandon a so-called public option to get a health care deal — was a hard pill to swallow for many of his Democratic supporters.

The Affordable Care Act promises to provide health insurance to millions who lacked it. But it also stops far short of the idea that health care is a basic right for everyone living in the country. And it embraces the market-based system of private health care delivery that has long existed in America.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#1641 May 7, 2012
If grandma wont work and pay her fair share then throw her off the bridge
After all she is probably responsible for multiplying her unproductive self causeing more and more problems by the day
Eliminate this trash once and for all
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#1642 May 7, 2012
harvey wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason Republicans are against increased taxation is because it would do us no good. Democrats lie to their constituents by saying taxing the wealthy is the salvation to our problems.
>>Democrats are not saying that, but obviously we have to increase taxes on the wealthy who've seen their tax rate fall ever since the early '50s. The top bracket should be paying at least 50%.
Republicans offer the truth which is our problem is not money coming in, but money going out.
>>Only a ReTHUGlican would be that dishonest, or stupid. Our deficit results from BOTH excess spending AND a lack of revenue.
Let's deal with some facts here: 47% of Americans pay absolutely no income taxes at all. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes--yes. But no income tax.
>>That's because their either too poor to pay taxes at all, or are middle class families who get tax credits as part of programs enacted by Repubs AND Dems.
The top 10% of wage earners in this country pay 71% of all collected income taxes. If 71% is not enough, then what percentage is? 80%? 92%? 100%?
>>Still at a loss as to why this is a problem, or why they shouldn't pay more than they do now.
Okay, so we increase taxes on the wealthy just like they were when Clinton was in office. How will that save a country 16 trillion in debt and growing? It doesn't
>>Debt isn't our biggest problem; recovery from recession and lack of employment are. We need to quit WASTING money, especially on the military-industrial complex; but we will also have to increase revenue if we're to put together further stimulus and fully recover.
First off, the wealthy are paying way over 50% of their earnings in taxes when you consider, federal, state, county and city. This is not to mention the taxes they pay on purchases.

Secondly, if you confiscated every single dollar from the wealthy right now, it would not be enough to fund the federal government for one month. Taxation is no solution, and given the ramifications of taxation, it would likely cause more unemployment which of course reduces tax collections.

I see you are from Ohio, so let me ask: how did Kasich get our state to the fourth in the nation of job creation when we were 47th when he took over? More taxes?

You need to learn about taxing the wealthy, and here is where you can start:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williamns04...
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#1643 May 7, 2012
OzRitz wrote:
Xray: wrote " Okay, so we increase taxes on the wealthy just like they were when Clinton was in office. How will that save a country 16 trillion in debt and growing? It doesn't "
You seem to forget Clinton was the only president in 30 yrs who brought a balanced budget. So it defies your argument, having a legitimate tax made a difference. Yet you right wingers just can't accept this, like all your other failed ideology it has no place in this Globalised world. No corporation will ever behave in a patriotic way unless forced to. They will chase the $$$ no matter where it comes from. That is why you elect Governments to protect your interest, NOT coporations.
You conveniently forgot that Clinton presided under a Republican led Congress led by Newt Gingrich. It was Gingrich that pressed Clinton into reducing the capital gains taxes that helped with that economy at the time. It was also Gingrich who (in his contract with America) created Welfare Reform which Clinton vetoed twice, but was forced to sign because Gingrich placed the bill on his desk just before his run for reelection.

The President has to sign the bills presented to him by Congress, but it's Congress who has the national checkbook in this country.
curious

Junction City, KS

#1644 May 7, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
It's in the US Constitution under the Powers Of Congress. The only exception is acts of protecting the country which the President has power over.
I'm looking for specifics from you. What should we not be spending on that we are currently spending on? Are you suggesting we should eliminate any particular department or service? What do you read in the Constitution that is different than what is being done today?
Le trou de balle

AOL

#1645 May 7, 2012
We will continue paying each other bills! That is all!
Ben also said

Junction City, KS

#1646 May 7, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
This reminds me of my favorite Benjamin Franklin quote: "When people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of our Republic."
Benjamin Franklin
Isn't it amazing how much insight into the future these guys had?
Those who would give up essential liberties for a little security deserve neither liberty or security. I doubt you`re very fond of that one. But I do agree with Ben`s insight.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#1647 May 7, 2012
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm looking for specifics from you. What should we not be spending on that we are currently spending on? Are you suggesting we should eliminate any particular department or service? What do you read in the Constitution that is different than what is being done today?
Key Constitutional Grants
of Powers to Congress
Article I, Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...

Anything outside of these specifics should not be funded by the federal government.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1648 May 7, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
Fair means equal, and not based on your financial accomplishments.
George W. Bush had none. He got rich losing his parents' friends' money.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#1649 May 7, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
First, let us separate the two words "fair" and "taxation" We all know what taxation is, but what is fair?
Fair means that if you and I both walk into a room, see an unattended chocolate cake, we agree to each taking half. That's the Republicans definition of fair.
A Democrats definition of what's fair would require us to both answer a series of questions: how old are you, how much do you make per year, how many houses do you own, how many cars do you drive and so on.
Depending on how each of us answer those questions, you might walk out with no cake at all.
Fair means equal, and not based on your financial accomplishments. Even if we had a flat tax rate of 10%, the wealthy would still pay more because 10% of $1,000,000 is $100,000. 10% of $35,000 is $3,500.
For whatever reason, Democrats have this belief that only they can decide what's fair. If a Republican makes that decision, it's unfair because the Democrat number (in their mind) is the default percentage.
Proof that Republicons are stupid.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#1650 May 7, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Everybody I know who is or was on unemployment milked it to their last day. My neighbor for instance bragged how he was getting $370.00 per week after taxes. He did under the table work on the side for cash, and was doing better than when he had a full time job.
Another friend of mine who works at the steel mills heard they were going to layoff workers. He is up on the ladder in seniority, so he volunteered for a layoff. Why not? If laid off, he would get 90% of his pay because of the union plus unemployment. He would be making more money off of work than on. The same deal goes for the UAW workers.
"If somebody is going to pay you to not work, then don't be surprised when people don't work!"
Rush Limbaugh
Republicons love living off the government dole.

"Tea Party-backed GOP freshmen pack defense bill with pork

...While talking the big plan to be fiscally responsible the Republican freshmen have packed a huge $553 billion spending bill with millions of pet defense projects for their home districts.

Yep. Pork barrel is still alive in the halls of Congress and the pigs at the trough are the ones voters sent to Washington to end the wasteful practice.

Of course, Republicans claim the money for the projects arenít pork. Of course not. Pork is when the money is spent by the other guys in someone elseís district. If itís in your own district itís necessary."

CHB

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#1651 May 7, 2012
Republicons love taxing and stealing.

"The huge federal transportation bill was in tatters in early March when Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama posed a heretical idea for breaking through gridlock in the House.

In a closed-door meeting with fellow Republicans, Rogers recommended reviving a proven legislative sweetener that became politically toxic a year ago.

Bring back earmarks, Rogers, who was first elected to Congress in 2002, told his colleagues."
Churmudgeon

Valders, WI

#1654 May 8, 2012
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm looking for specifics from you. What should we not be spending on that we are currently spending on? Are you suggesting we should eliminate any particular department or service? What do you read in the Constitution that is different than what is being done today?
We could stop funding the UN. The EPA and dept of agriculture. We could stop funding world police actions like afganistan etc. and stop giving local goverments grants. In my county they wasted over one and a half million dollars on some old rotting log cabins. because the federal goverment gave them grants and enabled the waste.The goverment is a parasitic overstaffed overpaid waste of money. They cant generate enough revenue by taxing the productive so they borrow to support their parasitic existance.
curious

Junction City, KS

#1655 May 8, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>

Anything outside of these specifics should not be funded by the federal government.
I didn't ask for a copy and paste job of Article one. I ask for the third time - what is outside of these specifics that we are currently funding that you think we shouldn't be?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1656 May 8, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
Republicons love taxing and stealing.
"The huge federal transportation bill was in tatters in early March when Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama posed a heretical idea for breaking through gridlock in the House.
In a closed-door meeting with fellow Republicans, Rogers recommended reviving a proven legislative sweetener that became politically toxic a year ago.
Bring back earmarks, Rogers, who was first elected to Congress in 2002, told his colleagues."
That's interesting. In most districts a Congressman who can bring home the bacon is appreciated. It's only in those with an excess of teabaggers and the like where it's considered outre.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#1658 May 8, 2012
isuck_ wrote:
If grandma wont work and pay her fair share then throw her off the bridge
After all she is probably responsible for multiplying her unproductive self causeing more and more problems by the day
Eliminate this trash once and for all
I'd MUCH rather see a racist, reactionary far-Right troll like you go off the bridge to his death, frankly.

When's that scheduled? Will there be pictures online?:)
harvey

Columbus, OH

#1659 May 8, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
First off, the wealthy are paying way over 50% of their earnings in taxes when you consider, federal, state, county and city. This is not to mention the taxes they pay on purchases.

>>Prove it. And in any case, I'm talking about INCOME TAXES.

Secondly, if you confiscated every single dollar from the wealthy right now, it would not be enough to fund the federal government for one month. Taxation is no solution, and given the ramifications of taxation, it would likely cause more unemployment which of course reduces tax collections.

>>No one said anything about "confiscation," nor did I suggest that raising taxes on the wealthy alone would pay for everything right now. I want the Bush cuts rolled back, and taxes on the upper bracket increased, which will bring in more revenue. That will help deal with one part of the problem. It's dishonest, of course, to claim that increasing taxes on the rich will "cause more unemployment." That's just a GOP talking point.

I see you are from Ohio, so let me ask: how did Kasich get our state to the fourth in the nation of job creation when we were 47th when he took over? More taxes?

>>Politifact says you're full of it, and so is anti-Union activist and Wall St. pimp Ka-sux.
"But when you look at what states rank the highest in raw numbers of jobs created over that time frame, you begin to notice a common characteristic: they are predominately the states with the highest populations.

By raw numbers the most jobs created were in California (193,800), Texas (158,300), Florida (120,200), New York (101,000), New Jersey (52,100), Massachusetts (50,000), Louisiana (49,700), Pennsylvania (45,400) and Ohio (45,200).

And by population the biggest states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The only state in the top seven in population to be outside the top 10 in job growth is Illinois, which is No.11 in raw number of jobs created with 38,100.

When you hold steady for the relative population size of a state by looking at the new jobs created as a percentage of the state's workforce population, Ohio drops precipitously down the job creation ranks."

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/201...

You need to learn about taxing the wealthy, and here is where you can start:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williamns04...

>>Screw right-wing asshat Williams and the JewishWorldReview. And you.

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#1660 May 8, 2012
Harvey is the 'wooden indian' of topix, you can talk to him, but he won't listen. you can argue with him, but he won't listen, you can agree with him, but he won't listen. you can pretend like he's not there, but he won't listen.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#1661 May 8, 2012
inbred Genius wrote:
Harvey is the 'wooden indian' of topix, you can talk to him, but he won't listen. you can argue with him, but he won't listen, you can agree with him, but he won't listen. you can pretend like he's not there, but he won't listen.
iG is the brainless cracker of Topix, and yet wonders why people "won't listen." Hard to figure, huh?:)

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#1662 May 8, 2012
harvey wrote:
<quoted text>
iG is the brainless cracker of Topix, and yet wonders why people "won't listen." Hard to figure, huh?:)
huh? say that again, I wasn't listening.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#1663 May 8, 2012
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
huh? say that again, I wasn't listening.
Sorry, probably busy trying on a new hood for this weekend's Klan picnic, huh?

LOL

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 6 hr Tm Cln 4,242
News Democrats aim to blast Trump for favoring wealthy Nov 20 Trump is a joke 1,193
News Gingrich: Mitt Romney is a liar (Jan '12) Nov 15 anonz 89
News Cain says he won't drop out of GOP race (Nov '11) Nov 14 Alreds Revenge 272
News In Fiscal Cliff Talks, Higher Taxes Vs. Closing... (Nov '12) Nov 12 RayGONE 8
News Romney adviser Gillespie charges Obama campaign... (Jul '12) Nov 8 Kapernick of Madison 3
News Romney to Host Fundraiser for Virginia Hopeful ... (Mar '14) Nov 8 Pocahontas of Cha... 2
More from around the web