Federal Judge Dismisses Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

By | December 1, 2010

  • December 1, 2010 at 10:44 am
    DaBear666 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Apparently the judge’s ruling includes the statement “interstate commerce would be hurt by large employers failing to offer adequate healthcare coverage, thus “the employer coverage provision is a lawful exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power,”

    Can someone perhaps explain “How is interstate commerce hurt by large employers failing to offer adequate healthcare coverage” I’m sure it is a nice statement to make, but that does not make it a fact. If employers don’t offer adequate healthcare coverage, then they can sell products less expensively–how does that hurt interstate commerce?

  • December 1, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    Sarah says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Any idiot can see that the government requiring you to purchase something is unconstitutional.

    Again, Judges legislating from the bench!

  • December 1, 2010 at 12:36 pm
    LibertyorDeath says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So it would appear that the ends does justify the means. Even if the means is illegal…if the end is noble enough the means is justified. I am curious what the question the judge was supposed to be addressing in this judgment? Was it the central argument of the sovereignty of the states or is this some other argument that is tangential to the sovereignty question? This article could have done a better job of showing that perhaps the judge did not actually address the question being brought before him.

  • December 1, 2010 at 12:37 pm
    Wayne says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A political hack sums it up. A Clinton appointee with a history of decisions that document his political underpinnings.

  • December 1, 2010 at 12:40 pm
    Tar says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Watching the further decline of America.
    Candidate Barack Hussein Obama said it best: “The United States of America is the greatest country in the world, help me CHANGE it”. Oh and he is! For the worse.

  • December 1, 2010 at 12:57 pm
    HMM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If we lowly citizens MUST buy insurance is upheld as constitutional, then refusing an invasive TSA body search and trying to leave the airport will also be held as constitutional. (Refuse to buy, get fined or taxed or penalized or something by a parasitical government. Refuse to be searched, then be detained and fined.) If the people do not rise up, this country is doomed.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:12 am
    NO Tolerance says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Legislation from the bench. We see this more and more where fewer and fewer judges interpret the law without political or liberal bias.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:16 am
    Spoiler says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Seriously,
    What’s a viable solution to where health insurance becomes affordable for companies and individuals alike. Everybody has the basic right to live. Don’t tell me.. let me guess, let them live without health insurance, which of course then brings the cost of keeping them alive back to us, or better yet just take them out back and shoot them. Seriously. Just because you hate the politics, don’t scream rights rights rights while draped in the proverbial flag from the top of perfect mountain.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:19 am
    HMM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    well – how about just getting the government out of the way and just let people buy their own insurance from the private sector?

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:24 am
    susan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A solution – sure – not another albatross called Obama care on top of the problems the country have.
    Address the COST of health care – competition drives costs down and quality products would survive – as well as our choice! lets allow it accross state lines – let the consumer pick the product, not the government.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:26 am
    Spoiler says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If we could TRUST the private sector sure, problem is that the private sector has shown time and time again that they are not trustworthy, especially where the mighty dollar is involved.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:28 am
    HMM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Are you serious – you actually trust the government more than the private sector? The private sector cannot fine and imprison you. Are you serious? Really?

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:28 am
    TAR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Instead of having 50 different state regulations, how about 1. Allow businesses to band together through Association type plans, as the Unions design and purchase insurance. The union member in New Jersey pays the same rate as the union guy in Florida. Well why can’t business do this? In Florida it is illegal under the Small Group Reform Act to have Association Plans. This has caused dramatic increases in group health costs.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:30 am
    TAR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well Spoiler spoken like a true Anti-Capitalist! You would make Hussein Obama Proud!!!

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:32 am
    Karl Rove says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yes, government can be trusted more than private sector. Government can’t fine and imprison you arbitrarily – must follow due process, jury of peers, etc. Private sector will just do all it can (especially if left unregulated) to increase profits with no regard for the public good.

    why is it that this needs to be explained to you?

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:34 am
    DS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Um, not like this is the only thing the public may be required to buy. Case in point: Under federal law, the purchase of flood insurance is mandatory for all federal or federally related financial assistance for the acquisition and/or construction of buildings in high-risk flood areas (Special Flood Hazard Areas or SFHAs).

    Second, how on earth do you compare the TSA fiasco to this?? Remember who set up the TSA, your favorite son Bush. Gee, he didn’t screw up the country at all…

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:35 am
    Spoiler says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Didn’t say I trusted the government, they both have their hands in our pockets. However, I trust the private sector a bit less.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:37 am
    Karl Rove says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    so compulsory workers comp and auto liability coverage is unconstitutionsl?

    Exactly what country’s constitution do you think governs us anyway?

    As for when did judges become political hacks: not sure when, but there was no doubt that they are with the courts ruling on allowing corporations unlimited campaign contributions. But then, you wouldn’t object to that since that allows for major funding of your type of candidates.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:37 am
    TAR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yes – capitalism – Bad
    Free Enterprise system – Bad
    Government control – Good
    Socialism – Good –
    UGH!

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:38 am
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The federal government has destroyed Social Security and driven Medicare into insolvency. The federal government has been stealing the monies paid into the se two programs, using them instead for the general fund, where pet projects can be funded to buy off constituencies (votes), opening the door to fundraising checks. Anyone who believes in the honesty and benevolence of government is a fool. In fact, one can find no quarter of the democrat party where fools do not reign supreme. The bottom line is this: leftists are a cancer on our states, country, and the entire planet. In fact, if you count the number of dead, casued specifically by leftists (WWI, WWII, Russian Revolution, Mao, Pol Pot, Che, Castro, Mussolini, etc.), they number into the billions. Yet idiots still exist who profess the leftist creed – like spoiler – which cost the world billions of souls. Truly sick people.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:38 am
    HMM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Oh – I see – the government is ALWAYS completely fair and not driven by political ideologies. You can CHOOSE to do business with a given company. You only get ONE government. Why does THIS need to be explained to you???

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:38 am
    Spoiler says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    not Anti-Capitalist just feel they should at least buy me dinner first before they s@#$ me .

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:38 am
    GETREAL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with you…A political hack sums it up. A Clinton appointee with a history of decisions that document his political underpinnings. This is the liberal version of legislating from the bench.

    Also seems this liberal judge/legislator also thinks he is an actuarial. Gee did I miss somewhere that he might have qualification as a actuary?

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:41 am
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That is becuase you are a fool. The government cannot be sued out of existence. Private enterprise can (enron, world comm, etc.). The federal government created the entire financial mess we are currently experiencing. The federal government cannot be stopped.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:41 am
    DS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You are a real gem. So everything questionable that our government has done is all a result of “leftists” aka Democrats aka people who “cost the world billions of souls”. I totally get it now. Gee whiz.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:41 am
    TAR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yes the profiteers owe me something for nothing.
    The Founding Fathers were idiots, how dare they come with a scheme and draft this document called the U.S. Constitution to keep government out of our daily lives. Why we need more government and ways to punish those evil risk takers who just want to profit.
    What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:43 am
    Mike n says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    STATE CONSTITUTIONS are the ones that passed these laws. Once again, STATES. This is legal and entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The federal government doing these things, however, would not be Constitutional. Have you no clue how our system of federalism works? Are you really that otbuse and uneducated? No wonder you’re a leftist.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:49 am
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Leftists define rights as coming from the state, thereby allowing leftist governments to take anything they desire, including life, from citizenry. That is the central tenant of leftists, be they socialists, communists, or any other form of statist. In this country, according to our founding documents, natural rights are not man-made but, rather, endowed by our Creator, so that no man or government can take them away. This little thing called the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, details this. However, as a leftist statist, you must never have spent time with these documents, nor understand their origins or meaning. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be a leftist or a statist. Either that, or you are incredibly thick, lacking the wherewithal to comprehend the content of the documents. Which is it?

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:52 am
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Actually, you want the government to buy you dinner with MY TAX DOLLARS before they f#$k you. In other words, you are a scumbag trying to pilfer money from the table of my family. I appreciate your honesty with this. Most leftists try to pretend that’s not what they seek. You may be a scumbag, but at least you’re honest about it!

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:57 am
    Karl Rove says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Revisionist history update:

    Contrary to earlier reports, Musolini wasn ot a facist. In fact, he was a socialist.

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:58 am
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Just remember, the democrat party is the party of:
    – Slavery
    – The KKK (known as the “terrorist wing of the democrat party”)
    – Jim Crow
    – The Civli War South
    – Segregation
    – Burning Black Churches
    – Lynching
    – The Black Panthers
    – KKK Grand Kleagle, Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd – whom the democrat party placed 4th in line of presidential succession.

    A greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts than the democrat party. AND THOSE WERE PRESENTED BY A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT – who knew federal legislation was the only way to stop members of the democrat party from killing blacks all across the South.

    The world has seen what leftists and the democrat party is capable of. Why should this time prove any different?

  • December 1, 2010 at 1:59 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Karl Rove (Marx), I love your sense of humor. Comparing the tort system (civil) remedies of insurance to cover legal liabilities and healthcare insurance is a scream. You weren’t being serious were you?

    As for evil corp donations, lets look at the counterpart, i.e.,union donations which were 89 MILLION dollars in the last election, moslty coming from public sector workers lobbying the public for more pay and benefits so they could contribute more. You tell me which is more corrupt to the body politic and does more financial damage to the country.

    As respects your trusting government, may I mention the Tuskegge Experiment, Watergate and all other government conspiracies that the left loves to tout as proof that the American system is totally corrupt. Karl, you can’t have it both ways.

    As for this judge, she resides in the same shallow intellectual pool as the Ok Federal Judge that just struck down OK attempt to outlaw the use of Shiria law in its court cases. They should be paid no attention as the Ocare matter is headed for the Supremes and all these pro Ocare rulings are nothing but background noise.

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:03 am
    Disgruntled says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wow, this is long. I don’t know any of you and find myself shocked at the anger I feel coming through these posts.

    We are not going to convince each other that one or another opinion is correct when all we’re doing is name calling.

    Make your logical, intelligent voice heard. Ask questions, be prepared for answers. Even if the answers don’t make you happy, rather than tearing apart the people who did answer, consider the information, if it doesn’t work for you say that, and ask your question again.

    I understand that what is best for me may not be best for you and that what I believe may not be what you believe. Guess what? That’s okay, I’m not mad at you because we don’t agree.

    Yes, there are a lot of things going on in our country that are ridiculous. One person, one party, one or two presidential terms did not cause them all. To see the beginning of where we are now as a country, you MUST go back a MINIMUM of 20 years, not 2 and not 6
    .
    Some of our simple options: letter writing and VOTING. Instead of using our energy to berate each other, berate the people who can actually do something to move the country forward. Do it in an intelligent and logical manner. Ask questions and expect answers. Do not name call or threaten just ask someone to stand up until they do. It’s what we hired them to do. If they don’t do their job – VOTE and fire them. Be the squeaky wheel in the correct way!

    We CAN send clear messages. I don’t care what party anyone is loyal to or affiliated with. If you, as an American, want things to be different, take it upon yourself to send that message clearly at every opportunity.

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:03 am
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Your ignorance knows no bounds. Mussolini WAS a socialist, fool (the government controlled the means of production!). As was Hitler. As was Pol Pot. As was Stalin. As was Mao. As is Castro. As was Che. And billions died because of it.

    Your ignorance state may be free to you, but it certainly is priceless for those who have to pay for it (everyone else). Honestly, I think you are really a right-wing nut, sent here only to make leftist seems downright ignorant and mentally incompetent. And I have to complement you on doing a successful job!

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:03 am
    Noah says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So, Sarah, judges upholding legislation that has been passed by legislators in Congress is the same as judges legislating from the bench??!! Wouldn’t they be legislating from the bench if they overturned what elected lawmakers did?
    Too much of our public and political discourse has been reduced to slogans and talking points. People don’t even stop to think if they make sense, they just recite them over and over again in any circumstance.

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:05 am
    Spoiler says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike N

    Wow, such bile… seems that name calling and insults have become your fall back position. Bravo.

    Pally you don’t know me, nothing about me, everything I have I’ve earned and worked for. Didn’t inherit it, didn’t get it given to me, simply earned it.

    My “private sector” health insurance charges me over 12,000 per year for their “coverage” for my family. That doesn’t include copays, deductibles and some prescription costs. If you’ve got 12k plus to just throw around, by all means enjoy yourself. I don’t.

    However acting like some uneducated knuckle draging school yard bully is amazing. Simply amazing. I actually feel pity for someone with that much hate and bile built up inside them like that.

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:10 am
    MikeN says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    While I appreciate your words and the overall message conveyed by your post, I have to disagree. These people are coming after my family, my home, my income, my business, my freedoms, and my life. There comes a time when rights are being trampled and forces must rise up to stop those destroying our lives. That is not accomplished through niceties.

    If someone came up to you and hit you in teh head with a baton, would you calmly ask them a few questions, or would you simply go after them to get the baton and stop them? Well, it is well time to stop those who are beating every taxpayer over the heads with batons. By any means necessary, as far as I’m concerned. Leftists have a history of totalitarianism and are prone to violence (see strikes in Greece, London, and Ireland for immediate reference). History shows they will not stop until many are dead (WWI, WWII, Korean Conflict, KKK, Pol Pot, etc.). This is our choice.

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:16 am
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sorry, but when you post ingorant drivel, which is easily refuted with the tiniest amount of historical knowledge, it is quite difficult to address you with anything other than contempt. That’s also the response you get when you are part of stealing from my family, my future, my savings, and my freedoms. The question I have is this: At what point did you decide to attack the freedoms that are supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution? At what point did you decide to work to destroy the freedoms every one of us enjoys? At what point did you decide your family pays enough, so you could simply steal money from my family to make up the difference? How could anyone have any measure of respect for such a person? I have more respect for a common thief, as at least he or she is being honest. You, on the other hand, are not.

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:18 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Spoiler, you don’t think that the gov won’t be extracting $12,000 from you or your employer under a gov plan do you? You do realize that the gov plans, namely Medicare, have cost shifted to your plan. And the Ocare plan has done nothing to control the #1 underlying problem with your $12K premium, provider costs.

    Surely you don’t think that healthcare should be “free” or paid by someone else’s hard earned money? I guess I just don’t get your point.

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:20 am
    Little Frog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Pass a Constitutional Amendment spelling out who & how things are to be done and what the boundries are. Have 3/4 of the states approve it.
    Trouble is, that approach is antithetical to the left wing National-Socialists aka Progressives.

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:21 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike, I am afraid that your arguments are too intellectually nuanced for Karl and Spoiler. They reside in the stratosphere where wishes are facts, beliefs trump reality, and common sense was long ago put to the sword.

    Carry on, the rest of us get it.

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:22 am
    HMM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    MUST do this, MUST do that – Obamacare, TSA – all of it has to do with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT getting in our business, whether it be our pocketbook or our clothing.

    And just how do you who I voted for?

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:23 am
    Karl Rove says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    For Mike N:

    You are wrong.

    Nothing else to say.

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:24 am
    Spoiler says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    They’re coming after everyone, and not just the government.

    Republican, Democrat, Tea Party, Socialist, Capitalist, doesn’t matter. As long as there’s money and clout involved, there’s going to be corruption. Instead of beating each other with batons, we should find a common ground.

    I don’t know if I agree with the healthcare legislation or not. On the outside it does look like a power play, however some people are saying the same thing about the new powers they want to give to the FDA, but it would appear based on all the issues lately that oversight may be a good thing.

    Remember the founding fathers didn’t come up with the Constitution overnight, it was fought over, argued about and probably revised more times than we’ll ever know. However in the end, common ground was found and a nation was forged.

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:28 am
    Spoiler says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    and for all you that feel intellectually superior, quick question…

    Why aren’t you up there in Washington trying to fix the problem instead of down here with us trying to flex your alleged intellectual muscles and telling everyone else how wrong they are?

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:40 am
    TAr says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Because people like Mike N will not get elected for telling people the truth and not pandering to all’s every whim.
    We cannot afford government, but we so many people and organizations with their hands out thinking they are “Entitled” and it’s their “Right” to have things. The pie can only be divided in some many slices. Politicians including the king, Sheik Obama, are not willing to make the tough decisions including border control, illegal immigration, healthcare, taxes and control/reduce government spending. I don’t know Mike N. but it sounds to me he would not pull any punches and tell it like it is. Unfortunately he would not be concerned with feelings and too many eligible voters would have to go to counciling because their self esteem would be wounded.

  • December 1, 2010 at 2:51 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Karl, you need to re-think your views on fascism and socialism, they are two sides of the same coin. The minor differences may be subtle, but their premise is control of the private sector by the public sector, with facism sprinkling in a few property rights.

    This is why it is so difficult to have a substantive discussion of our system of government and the progressive view of how government should be.

  • December 1, 2010 at 3:12 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The answer to not being in DC. The people working in the boiler room are who really can affect how the fast the ship goes, what direction is turns, and how much power the captain really has.

  • December 1, 2010 at 3:31 am
    Little Frog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Tom: Very good analogy! I’m going to remember that. Although; I think we’re becoming more of a nuclear powered barge.

  • December 1, 2010 at 3:39 am
    David says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike, just to refine your view that the government destroyed Medicare. That is true. It was the elected Republican majority and President (Bush II) who passed the budget busting Medicare Part D. It was unfunded, complicated, and gave our governement no ability to negotiate with the drug companies for bulk purchases of the drugs the plan is supposed to cover and goes against everything the new Rupublican majority in the house supposedly stands for. It will lead to the end of Medicare. This stink bomb of a bill was passed by the same people who are now skewering Obama for his health-care initiatives. Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress. A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill’s passage. These people are nothing but scum. Every current Republican Congressman/Senator who was in office then and is still in office, supported this bill. In the old days when the media actually cared about the truth instead of ratings, nobody would have gotten away with this. Why would ANYONE trust a Repbulican legislator to do anything but cling to power. They do not care about you or me. But, yes the government has done everthing to kill Medicare. This was not meant to beat on Republicans but those who suppesedly hate Obama’s intentions are guilty of the same thing. And….you and I and everyone else lose.

  • December 1, 2010 at 3:42 am
    Mike..please says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike N. Please! Cut back on the hyperbole bro. It’s hard to take you seriously.

  • December 1, 2010 at 3:57 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    David, you have it exactly right, the Repubs cheered on wildly by the Dems passed this “bipartisan” unfunded program and bootstrapped us, our kid, our grandkids, and great grandkids to this lodestone example of bad legislation. That is why this new group in DC has to continue to be held accountable and must resist the siren’s call for “bipartisanship”, which in DC speak is akin to eating the center hole in your favorite donut and claiming how good it tastes and how good it is for your diet.

  • December 1, 2010 at 4:08 am
    Mr. Solvent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Tom, you’ve hit the nail on the head. We must move past this Democrat vs. Republican thing. We need the government our founders envisioned. This will no doubt upset a large number of people.

    With a government that’s as bloated and out of control as ours, cutting to the bone may be our last hope.

  • December 1, 2010 at 4:13 am
    D says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree. Anyone who thinks we can afford any type of tax cut or extentions of current tax cuts is smoking something. Please! No trickle down economics!

  • December 1, 2010 at 4:15 am
    Mr. Solvent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    D, you don’t get my point at all. In a government cut to the bone as the founders envisioned, taxes would be nearly non-existent.

  • December 1, 2010 at 4:21 am
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m not out in Washington for two reasons:

    1. I do not need to corrupt myself to make a living and care for my family.
    2. Washington is not the center of intellectual muscle, or this would have been dealt with long ago.

    At the same time, it is not intellectual mucsle so much as one doing their duty to educate themselves, in order to understand why one should or shouldn’t vote for specific items. One must have an understanding of philosophy (political and otherwise), economics, history, and a thorough insight as to how differing ideologies have influenced the world, for better and worse, in order to make an informed decision. That’s inarguable.
    The sickening part is most people vote without doing the commensurate research neccessary to understand the implications of their actions. This is why we find ourselves in the current state where much of what is proposed and passed in Congress is clearly antithetical to the Constitution and relinquishes our rights, more and more, on a daily basis. It is just that, finally, those of us who are sick and tired of those surrendering natural right on our behalf have finally realized the leftists must be stopped before every single one of our rights have been eroded, and we find ourselves in a totalitarian state (TSA pat downs, IRS court where we are guilty until proven innocent, the fact 50% of us pay ALL the income taxes – while others pay nothing, instead living off my family) where there are no rights, but the whims of whatever current Congress and administrations decide which are valid.

    Anyone who thinks such things are displaying “intellectual muscle” is most likely not using the muscle between their ears. Once again, educating yourself, particularly on the items I’ve listed, should be a minimum requirement of a free society. The fact you feel one positing the most basic understanding, history and philosophy regarding our Constiution, natural rights, and the western history of political philosophy is displaying “intellectual superiority” gives lie to your basic understanding of our republic, its proper functions, and the system of federalism provided by the Constitution.

    Unfortunately, the rest of us are made to pay for your unwillingness, or lack or intellectual curiosity, to gather the information neccessary to make informed and educated choices. Our society is worse off due to people such as yourself.

    Intellectual laziness is nothing to be prouod of.

  • December 1, 2010 at 4:22 am
    Tiresis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    For Mike N…Nazism was a very unholy alliance between the political wing of Germany and the rich industrial wing…not what the term “socialism” has come to mean in our day at all. Krupp, et. al, hade no problem using slave labor and racking up the profits while they lasted.

    Marxism in its purest sense provides for the many as opposed to the few.

    Communism as practiced by the original Russians was in many ways a revolution of the have nots against the haves. As was Maoist communism.

    The issue is too much wealth controlled by too few to the detriment of the majority.

    As always, these systems have become corrupted by the very humans that have devised them. I hae become convinced that there is little pure in this world, and that people always screw up a good thing, people being what they are.

    In turn, capitalism is not pure. The “invisible hand” and the “free market” do not exist and probably never have. If they did, how do you explain the billions spent on lobbyists by the large corporations? (And the large unions, too). How many tax loopholes have been created just for a particular ndustry segment? How much of our tax money gets sent to agribusiness? How much of our money subsidizes big oil?

    I truly resent those of you who refer to our President as “Sheikh Obama.” You show your true racist colors and you are therefore to be written off. For those of you who think that the Republicans are the parety of Lincoln, oh baby, where have you been? For those of you who blame Obama for not “doing things” remember where all the revenue bills come from and who votes for them. You, of the supreme knowledge of all things Constitutional obviously have forgotten civics 101…the Congress legislates and the President executes.

    While all this bile is being shot around, no one is addressing the real issues with healthcare; how do we provide decent healthcare at reasonable and rational costs for all our citizens? If you think this is not the real question, then I write all of you off with Mike N, who is clearly mean spirited and an ***.

    For those of you who think the GOP is the new holy grail, I ask you to review the expenditures, the special interest bills, and the abrogation of rights that took place under the last administration.

    For those of you who think that you are middle class, you need to rethink the government actions of the past ten years and see how that has affected you. You need to check out the stats on the concentration of wealth in this country. Then you need to revisit pivotal eras in our history and see what that imbalance has wrought…among those eras would be various depressions and recessions including that of 1893, the Great Depression, and our current recession. For those of you who think this present recession was caused by people overspending on homes they couldn’t afford, then I also write you off, too.

    While you decry “liberalism” and “progressivism” you need to remember the great liberal, FDR, who may well have kept your parents or grandparents from starving. The Republican incumbent, Hoover, who was in office when the Depression hit thought that rich corporations would “volunteer” to help the poor and suffering. Yeah, RIGHT!

    As for judges becoming political hacks, I have a few words on that, too. Maybe they became political hacks when this wonderful conservative court decided to take the land away from the homeowners in New London via eminent domain so the New London government could sell it to private developers who would generate so many more new taxes that would help the government and therefore more citizens. Maybe you think it was the recent campaign contribution decision that put the rights of (anonymous) corporate donations over the rights of natural citizens. If that one doesn’t bother you, I sure as hell don’t know what will. Or maybe it was when the 1954 court overturned the Jim Crow segregation laws…I think that was a good case of activism, don’t you?

    You all are the next incarnation of NIMBY; you are IGM,FU….”I got mine”….imagine the rest. You will drape yourselves in the Constitution without truly appreciating the wonder of the words. What about the words “ALL men have certain unalienable rights…” To me, that means the right to have decent schools, decent healthcare, decent opportunities…and that we all should have a stake in providing for our citizen brethren.

    You wonder why the judge in MI might have thrown out that case? Well, I have a hint for you; you stupid right wing control freaks just couldn’t resist throwing in the abortion “thing” could you? You all want all your “own” rights, but no one elses. All you think of is your “pocketbook” rights but no one else’s personal rights…or what is the greater good for the greatest number. I write you all of. You do not exist for me.

  • December 1, 2010 at 4:38 am
    Bill in Wichita says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Tiresis, thank you, thank you. Yours was the best “post” I have read in some time. And that comes from a “moderate” republican, a lost breed…..

  • December 1, 2010 at 4:40 am
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    David,

    Please take note Medicare was insolvent far before and well apart from the Medicare Part D portion. As for your assertions, I agree this should have never been done, and I did not support it at the time.

    And as you consider Medicare Part D, please take a look at what the Democrats were proposing at the time. They were proposing all coverage for all prescription, across the board, run strictly by government, with absolutely no market forces in place whatsoever. While the program put into place by the Republicans was a travesty, it is still to this day under forecasts for cost. Once again, under forecast.

    Please indicatae where we would currently be had the leftists implemented their plan of total government control and coverage, with absolutely no market forces at work. This would be, much like the rest of Medicare, zooming off the charts, grossly more expensive than even the worst of projections.

    I agree with you. Medicare Part D shoud never have been implemented. Once again, please remind us all which party was isntrumental in forcing action on this (remember Al Gore’s example of the seniors who would have to choose dog food for sustenance, as they would have to pay for their drugs. “Grandma on Alpo” was the tag line, if you recall). Then, please remind us of the plan the leftists offered. If given the choice, the Rpublican offering, while offensive none the less, was the absolute lesser of two evils.

    Also, please search your memory banks for what the leftists said about this program. This was “nothing”. An “insult to the greatest generation”. The Republicans were “doing the bidding of the pharmaceuticals”, etc. Leftists were complaining this did not go far enough!

    But, I’m glad to see you offering up the understanding these programs are complete farce, where politicans are stealing our money, mis-managing the programs, and taking kickbacks to steal money from some to provide goodies to others. Given this, I imagine you will never vote for a statist/leftist again, as this once again gives lie to their garbage.

    Once again, Medicare Part D did not bankrupt Medicare. Medicare was insolvent well before that. Actuarial tables do not lie. Medicare was a sucker sale, designed only to kick in for those in the 30’s who would outlive average life expectancy. As life expectancy increased, the ponzi scheme became apparent – at least to those of us unblinkered enough to do the research and check it out.

    What I find faschinating are those who refuse to see the ponzi scheme for what it is…a scam.

  • December 1, 2010 at 6:01 am
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Where to start:

    1. Hitler was a socialist who implemented nationalized healthcare (socialism). Hitler controlled all aspects of the economy (socialism). Hitler was a socilalist. Now, one could make the argument Hitler was also a fascist. But fascism is not an economic state. If you feel it is, then please cite references and volumes to back your argument. But you cannot. They do not exist, at least from any kind of reputable source. And slave labor say nothing to the economic system implemented. The southern US was capitalist, even though they used slave labor. So, that point is a non-starter.

    2. To interject racism as a respone to anything I’ve writeen is both sickening and shows a lack of intellectual argument on your part. At no point did I denigrate the President, or make reference to his race. I did make reference to the history of racism that pervades the democrat party, however, as that is an inescapable part of the mentality of the group. Totalitarian in nature, and completely oblivious to the natural rights of mankind, as espoused in the Constitution.

    3. I do not think the Republicans are the holy grail. It is just I am not a racist and do not wish to steal the rights of others, as guaranteed by the Constitution, so there is no room for me in the democrat party (or really anyone else who understands the concept of natural rights). Also, not being a racist myself I cannot ally myself with a party so steeped in hatred and violence. I actually appreciate my freedoms, and feel that anyone who aligns themselves with a movement to take those freedoms from me is an enemy, by definition, of our contry. It is you trying to take from others around you. Yet you are aghast we all won’t just shut up, act like sheep, and go along with the program, giving up any rights we have.

    4. Regarding FDR, please do your homework. What was the unemployment rate throughout the implementation of the New Deal? Every single year, as program after program was implemented, the unemplyment rate ROSE! That’s right…it went UP. So, please, before you lecture me, do your homework. The unemployment rate did not go down until FDR pulled over 1,000,000 men off the unemployment lines to go to war and die. My question to you is this: Will Obama follow suit? If we are to follow FDR’s action plan, over 500,000 men will have to die. Check your facts, lad.

    5. Please list for me one conservative on the Supreme Court who voted for the New London decision. Waiting. Still waiting. We’ll be waiting a long time, as no conservative voted for this abomination. The Internet offers a great resource for this kind of information. I recommend you use it, as it saves one A LOT of embarrassment. And the court overturning major decisions (Plessy, Dred Scott, etc) usually did so to overcome democrat party appointees who had stained this country with racist decisions. Once again, please take the time and do your homework.

    As for the decision regarding corporations making political donations, I have one question: why would corporations be unable to make donations, while thug unions are allowed? That was the case with that law. Also, why should any entity (which by definition includes corporations – which are legal entities) that pays taxes be unable to have a say in the process? You prefer a world in which those who pay taxes should have no say in governing? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You could simply stop taxing corporations, which then have no stake in the political environment, as they no longer have to take part and pay for it.

    6. “All men have certian inaliable rights…” is not the complete sentence. Schools are not mentioned, nor is someone else providing healthcare for you. Perhaps you should spend some time with the rest of that document, so as to understand more than a few choice words to back up a weak point. Similarly, some time spent with the Federalist Papers, which detail the primary discussion regarding the text, why certain words were chosen, as well as the plain meaning of the concepts contained therein, would greatly benefit you. If the comments written are any indication, your understanding of that document, as well as the political philosophies behind it, are at best shallow and incomplete. But the nice thing about life is there is no requirement on live in ignorance. The tools exist if you bother to invest the time in reading and understanding them.

    6. NIMBY – means Not In My Backyard. This term is usually reserved for those who want to improve their lot, but not at their own expense. What those of us who value freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are saying is more akin to “Stop Stealing Money From My Children To Pay For Your Pet Project, Designed To Buy Votes From Those To Whom You Give My Stolen Money”. In other words, there is a rules sheet for Congress and the Federal Government. The rules are known as the Constitution. The democrat party is, and has been for decades, violating those rules, thereby stealing rights from individual citizens. You do have an understanding the Constitution is a negative rights document, right? That means the vehicle is designed to limit the federal government, not individual people. Your understanding seems to be individuals can be limited at will by the very government the Constitution is designed to curtail. Once again, this shows your complete lack of understanding of that document. So, yes, I am standing in opposition to your effort to kill individual liberties via government fiat (which was EXACTLY the reason for the Constitution and Bill of Rights).

    The place for programs you seem to desire is through state legislatures, as this is the mechanism designed within the Constitution. And there is already a huge program for what you speak. For example, there is MediCal in California. However, the leftists running the state have spent that money on other things, all to buy votes and increase the size and scope of government.

    7. I like how you throw abortion in there, as if that had been strewn about the chat board here. I don’t care what you feel about abortion. But please explain to me why I should be forced to pay for yours? It matters not if I am proabortion of prolife. It matters that my money is being absconded to pay for someone else’s birth control. The very fact you think this is somehow acceptable is a window on your mentality. Someone screws someone else, then expects another’s hard earned tax dollars should somehow pay for their party? Really? Why not have you pay for my next car accident? After all, it’s the same thing, is it not? One’s profligate behavior suddenly becomes the financial responsibility of someone else. Look, you play, you pay. It’s a simple concept, regardless of how you feel about abortion.

    Then again, it was the progrssives who initially were pushing abortion in the 1910’s and 1920’s to “rid the world of the dark mongrel hordes, who have babies without thought.” Those are the words of Margaret Sanger, one of Wilson’s favorites, and a darling of the progressive left. It seems the democrat party just can’t run away from their tendencies toward racism and violence. Why is that?

    And the tax system you rail about, with all those loopholes, was contructed almost entirely by leftist democrats. Since the dawn of the 20th century the Reopublican Party has had complete control of Congress roughly 20 years. This means leftists have controlled Congress over 80% of the time. And it is leftists who’ve fought implementation of the flat tax. Why? Because that would preclude their ability to gain campaign cash and buy votes through legislation.

    Look, I don’t mind intelligent conversation with people who are educated and conversant. However, it is difficult when those on the other end offer up flaccid arguments, with no basis in reality, history, or fact. I have deconstructed and proven wrong nearly everything you wrote in the last diatribe. This is not conjecture or opinion. These are facts.

    And there is truth to the idea where the more you learn and experience, the less likely you are to be a leftist. Do your homework, study up on the Federalist Papers, Natural Rights, and western political philosophy and you, too, can throw off the leftist chains of ignorance. But that cannot be done when others are doing the thinking for you. And that is a natural state when one doesn’t take time and invest the hard work in understanding for themselves.

    Then again, for some ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your apparent bliss.

    As I stated earlier, leftists are a cancer on ou rstates, country, and world. Please, read some history then get back to us.

  • December 1, 2010 at 6:44 am
    DS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    RE post by TAr:

    “decisions including border control, illegal immigration, healthcare, taxes and control/reduce government spending.”

    I believe if you check the facts, that the current administration has sent more resources to border control and deported more illegal immigrants than the previous administration did in 8 years. Just check yourself.

  • December 1, 2010 at 6:52 am
    DS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Could not have said it better myself.

  • December 2, 2010 at 7:37 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    D, I have to give you a D for logic. The key is starving this government to force less spending AND letting the private sector keep the money and generate revenue. That will help lift the revenue received by the government which will reduce the deficit as long a spending is throttled. Unfortunately, the history is that any increase in revenue from private sector activity is squandered on NEW spending. You fall prey to the lefty bromide of failed “trickle down” theory, of course you mean the private sector because what the government practices is exactly that-they figure they own all the wealth and once in while give us tax cuts (or no increases) so the money can “trickle down” to the common folk. You need to readjust your thinking to the new reality.

  • December 2, 2010 at 8:03 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Tireisis, my earlier blub had it wrong, you have no vision in either eye. Your screed about communism is instructive and timely. May I point out that earlier this week the Russian government acknowledged for the FIRST time Stalin’s Katyn Forest error. That blip in history where 22,000 Polish Army officers were massacerd says more about your beloved system than any words I could add about the inherently pernicious nature of your ideology.

    You decry capitalism as imperfect all while thinking the concept of Marxian/communist equality is purity is babble. You seem to think that the perfect is the enemy of the good and since your perfect system isn’t attainable, you place your vitriol on what has been proved to be superior. As with most hard core leftsists, your fall back position (excuse) for the horrible failures of communism is that imperfect people tried it and perfect people will learn from their mistakes and meet the utopian dream. To sum it up, communism isn’t just imperfect, it is a malignant idea whose attempted implementation has led to 10s of millions of deaths and heap countless misery or billions more.

    The intellectual gymnastics you must use to arrive at this illogical position makes you one scary dude.

    Mike N, you have it exactly right. Count me as a kindred spirit.

  • December 2, 2010 at 8:52 am
    TAR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You know what’s offensive is the arrogance and total disregard Sheik Obama has for the U.S. Constitution. You know what’s offensive, Americans and American businesses are hurting in this economy experiencing everything from job layoffs, lack of funding, lack of bank financing and government interference. But Obama finds it worthy to hold a Muslim Entrepeneurial Summit in Washington DC. A muslim entrepeneurial summit?? An ideology who despises capitalism. You know what’s offensive – Sheik Obama was not properly vetted, Frank Marshall Davis a devout communist was his mentor growing up in Hawaii. An ideology diametrically opposed to the individual, Freedoms and Liberties afforded to all Americans. Saul Alinsky theory of economics was good for the Soviet Union but not for the United States of America, yet it’s good enough to provide direction to Sheik Obama. We have a president who was heralded as this great teacher of the U.S.Constitution, it seems his education is affording him ways to circumvent this great document in order to implement his radical agenda?
    Oh and by the way, islam is not a race so there is no racism in using the term Sheik Obama. Don’t fall prey to the victimhood islam seeks in America. As the Sheik is enables islam in America given his pick as US Ambassador to OIC. OIC is agressively seeking to stem Free Speech in the Western Democracies including the United States of America. Another attempt to chip away at the Bill of Rights! It just doesn’t stop with this guy and his den of thieves.

  • December 2, 2010 at 8:55 am
    David says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dude, you have to stop the “leftist” stuff…name calling, etc. It’s hard to take you seriously. People will just shut you off before they hear what you have to say. Whatever…the plan Democrats proposed on Part D would have allowed the governmnent to exert it’s HUGE purchasing powers on the drug companies which in the end would have reduced the cost. But, if that happened those Republican congressman and staffers would not have gotten those cushy lobbyist jobs. Isn’t cost control a supposed Republican philosophy? The main reason this thing was rammed through, using the same parlimentary tactics used on the current healthcare legislation, was to curry the favor of the elderly vote. If Medicare was insolvent before, why overburden it with something else that does not work?

  • December 2, 2010 at 8:58 am
    I'm just sayin' says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    But, when Bush lower taxes for incomes over $250,000 it had no positive effect on the economy.

  • December 2, 2010 at 9:02 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    David, let’s not forget how quickly big Pharma jumped on the Ocare bandwagon. It proves that bipartisanship, to mantra of those who have the power and beat the other over the head, is nothing more than sloganeering and an attempt to mollify the masses. Or, in Marxist speak, “…opium for the masses.”. It is designed to dull our senses and make us all believe that compromise is what is needed on every issue.

  • December 2, 2010 at 10:08 am
    Mr. Solvent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    INCORRECT!

    The Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy during a VERY difficult time for us. I’m not Bush fan, but you cannot say that the tax cuts didn’t stimulate the economy. That’s just nonsense.

  • December 2, 2010 at 10:16 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The real division is whether the government, which produces no revenue, can better stimulate growth in the private sector (the sector which feeds the gov) or the private sector. Keynesians believe in the government multiplier effect and wildly tout a 2 or 3 to one increase (every dollar creates 3 dollars of revenue) which has been discredited more and more when examined over the last several recessions.

    Those of you who champion spending over those nasty “Bush” tax cuts must be feeling the intellectual pain of having gotten it wrong; however, that doesn’t dampen the resolve to believer otherwise, no truer example of “cognitive dissnance” can be found to explain that behavior.

  • December 2, 2010 at 10:38 am
    Anonymous says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    @ Mike N,

    So, you’re saying that Democrats are for State’s rights. Good Lord, where the hell did that come from. Republican’s have always wanted more State’s rights, and than accuse Democrats of wanting big government. I wish you idiot republiCONS would make up you minds.

  • December 2, 2010 at 10:49 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Is that where we are going-RepubliCONS v. DemocRATS?

  • December 2, 2010 at 11:55 am
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Actually, if you stop to thinnk about it, the only times leftists are for states rights are when it involves killing blacks and other minorities, as was the case with the civil rights legislation.

    At the same time, when the democrat party is working in conjunction with the KKK to ensure rule by violence, then I think the question can be raised as to whether the feds should step in. I would see that as a reasonable debate. We are talking about a system of murder and violence employed as policy by an entire ruling party (democrat) in a huge region of the country.

    I also believe the Civil War was justified federal action.

  • December 2, 2010 at 12:38 pm
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    David,

    When did an accurate description of people’s political philosophy become “name calling”? Right and left are simple concepts. Here’a primer for you:

    Left: Greater government control over individual rights as one progresses further left. Socialism involves government control over the levers of the economy (much like revelations just coming out of Omaba throwing over 3 trillion at corporations, and demanding seats on the BODs – i.e. control – , controlling banks and their pay scales, taking over auto corporations and stealing ownership rights from the investors and bond holders who lent them money, etc.). Move further left and we get to communism, where government not only controls the levers of the economy, but also controls how the products of that economy are distributed (or to put it as a famous one recently did “spreading the wealth around”). This trajectory leads to government control over all rights of the citizenry.

    Right: Maximized individual rights, with little government control over lives, decisions, freedoms, and lifestyles. The further right one goes, the greater individual freedom, with less governmental power. However, the downside here is at the trajectories end, which would lead to no government (which, by the way, not even Ron or Rand Paul call for).

    While economics are dynamic in nature and can increase with greater capital discovery (the ability to earn interest on money by lending), resources unearthed and processed (oil, gold, coal, crops), or ideas which are valuable (Microsoft, Google, inventions) individual/natural rights are a zero sum game. Either they reside with the individual or the government. And when rights are confiscated by the government they no longer exist for the individual. That is fact.

    So, anyone pushing for rights to be stolen from individuals and taken by the state is, by definition, trying to move this country to the left, as freedom is being sapped from individuals. This is not an insult, per se, but an accurate description.

    My question to you is this: Why do you take an accurate description of your ideology and desires as an insult? If you are pushing for the state (in the philosophical sense, rather than a federalism sense) to strip individuals of their rights, that is increasing the control of government over the economy, society, freedom, and lifestyle. Once again, that is clearly an attempt to shift further to the left. That would make you a leftist.

    I must say, however, I appreciate the fact the term offends you, as that shows you may, deep down, actually care about freedom. Perhaps, if you spent some time reflecting on the consequences of what you espouse, it might give you pause in the push to steal rights from individuals in this country.

    Similarly, pausing to reflect might provide insight to why people who enjoy freedoms espoused in the Constitution, and understand the document is a contract, guaranteeing individual liberty through restraint of the federal government, then it might make more sense to you why those on the right get angered as their rights are consistently attacked by those such as yourself. Would you expect us all to act as silent sheep as our rights are destroyed and freedom diminished?

    These are not difficult concepts to comprehend. The only thing I don’t understand is why you would like to give up your, and every other citizen’s, rights up for little to nothing. Have you no understanding of mankind’s history, and how freedoms you take for granted took thousands of years to develop conceptually, philosophically, economically, and in reality? The history books are filled with track records of kings, lords, gentry, and brutal dictators, where rights were determined on a whim, by only a few, with no recourse, and often death and destruction as accompaniment. The reason the U.S is unique is this was history’s first real democratic republic with guaranteed individual rights, where the federal government was contractually allowed only certian functions. Your push to further erode this contract is both alarming and historically short-sighted. The same goes for anyone else willing to give up their rights, as they give up mine in the process.

    Have you not considered this?

    At the same time, why do you not want to accurately describe yourself? Be honest. And if you say this is not your intent, then you are telling an untruth. Factually, you are pushing for a reliquishing of some individual rights. To say otherwise means you are either lying to us, or lying to yourself. Which is it?

  • December 2, 2010 at 1:25 am
    TAR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Great explanations on all your posts.
    Facts are hard to argue, so I guess the next resort is to call you names.
    Thanks!

  • December 2, 2010 at 1:53 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike, you have again hit the nail on the head.

    Let me add that the Constitution set forth with “negative” rights (tempered general rights), with limits on what a Federal government cannot and should not do.

    Leftists want to convert, or prevert, the Constitution to include a list of imagined “positive” righs such as the right to “affordable” healthcare, “affordable” housing, a “living wage”, food, clothing and finally, the redistribution of wealth to bring “social justice” to the forefont as part of the utopian dream of reinventing a democratic republic built on a strong capitalist bent, albeit with moderate regulation, to one that is more socialistic.

    This is the reason they believe in the Constitution as a “living breathing” document subject to change to fit their positive rights designs.

    That gets us back to healthcare, as this premise underlies their belief that it should be “given a chance” or attempt to pursuade others with a “let’s give it a try” answer to those how oppose it. They know full well that doing this is like asking a cancer patient to ignore the malignant cnacer cells and take a Talisman’s approach to treatment.

  • December 3, 2010 at 12:54 pm
    Tiresis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    you have misinterpreted what I wrote and have “revised” history to suit your ends. YES, the Consitution IS a living document. Thankfully so, if one is to consider the 14th amendment.

    Mike N, get your head out of the sand; the political shift between Dems and Repubs took place a few decades ago; now the GOP controls the southern and western states as opposed to the Dems in past generations. Update, Baby…

    With respect to abortion; I was not coming out either for or against, merely saying that the rightist who do not approve of the healthcare bill and who brought the suit for perhaps legitimate reasons, just COULDN’T RESIST throwin in abortion to show their truer colors. Until such time as those “people” learn to get their psuedo religious principals out of my bedroom, they will never convince me of the validity…or the purity…of their principles. Whether i belive that there should be public payment for abortion or not, is not the issue, but, of course, Mike N., you are so blinded by your own rhetoric and need to continually bleat your erroneous assumptions, that you miss the forest for the trees.

    You ARE disrespectful to our current President. “W” was not my man and truly, I believe that the election was stolen from Gore in 2000 (You want to talk about HACK courts?…check out that decision) but I would never show the disrespect that you all show; you show the lack of any kind of civility or respect between citizens who have different points of view and you villify the wrong man here.

    You wrap yourselves in the Constititution but fail to account for the changes that 250 years or so of social history have wrought in this world. Cling, cling, cling to some outdated static concept….like I said, the Constituition is an organic document…and the amendments prove that fact.

    The real issues are what we owe our fellow citizens. And, YES, as a true liberal, that includes for me, equal opportunities, sound education for our children, affordable higher education for those who qualify, decent healthcare, and enough food to eat. While Mike N correctly points out that the unemployment rate did not drop under FDR, the issue was STARVATION, a much more basic issue. The WPA, CCC, and other groups where the feds employed people did much needed public works.

    And insofar as war is used as a either a means to economic stimulus, or as a political end, you have only to look at the wars started and entered into by the GOP…including that heroic struggle in Granada under the GOP icon, Ronald Reagan…watch who you call out on wars, Mikey….we are living with two now that were not started under the “liberals” and one of which should never have occurred.

    And I also say to Mike, Tom, TAR, Solvent, et al., that you are so concerned about some old lady getting a free mammogram or some disabled person being able to see a doctor, you fail to see how the corporations, through their special interests, tax loopholes, access to congressment, and wiring into the Fed and Treasury are the true thieves of your tax dollars. Never do I hear anyone crab about the bloated bennies given to the multinationals who are exporting our jobs and trivializing those jobs that remian for much of the “masses.” WHY NOT? Where is the righteous indignation there? If we started taking back some of the lopholes and if our congressment would grow enough to close the dorrs to a lot of the special interest lobbyist, we would have enough revenue to provide a decent safety nets for our brethren.

    And yes, Mike N, there is something TERRIBLY wrong with allowing corporations to have the same rights as NATURAL citizens; with one fell swoop, the Supremes eradicated any hope of one man one vote….another of our cherished myths. Do you think an individual can counter the might of GE? Of Astrazeneca? Of Goldman Sachs and all those dollars they can bring to bear? A corporation is a fictive “person”, not a natural, real one. If you are not disturbed by this decision, you are truly blind and truly foolish. The unintended consequences of this decision will be very dire. (And I do also agree about unions PACS as well…but at least those donors were not ANONYMOUS).

    Your wonderful GOP wants to retain tax decreases for those making over 250,000 under the false guise that these are small business people. WHAT HOGWASH! OK, then raise the number to 1,000,000, but for heaven’s sake, stop buying the myth that these guys making that money are using those funds to create jobs. MEANWHILE, they deny unemployment extensions to individuals in states that have significant unemployment (and whose receipients usually cannot relocate to find a job if they have mortgages and families) when 1.00 in benefits is shown to produce 1.60 in spending within the economy. I hope you all are VERY proud. And YOU talk about class warfare? OIH BOY! HYPOCRITS.

  • December 3, 2010 at 1:10 am
    Tiresis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I find that most times, it pays to try to walk a mile in someone else’s moccasins….and to humbly remember, but for the grace of God, go I.

    As well as “the lesser of my brethren” and “am I my brohter’s keeper.”

    I ask you to look at the social and human points made by those foundation statements rather than the religious ones

    You just never know when the moccasin will be on the other foot…..

  • December 3, 2010 at 1:37 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike, no need to reply to Tiresis, as she is really Cassandra. Cassandra, I recognize the leftist boilerplate thought patterns from past posts.

    To quote a phrase, “as ususal” she dances around so fast, that even she can’t keep up with her spin. At the heart of every post is an emotion based rant against big corps and a pedantic attempt to justify socialism as the sole and only equalizer of all wrongs, real or imagined, punctuated with hyperbole about how capitalism is flawed and socialism is pure, if only applied correctly. The latter idea makes it easy to dismiss the fatal flaws of all prior attempts.

    She fails to realize what corporations are, a group of people banding together, and wants to eliminate the rights that people have when they do band together for a common financial purpose. In her mind, people get lost in the evil phrase, corporation and don’t deserve any rights, other than to exist to serve her will and welfare.

    For her, 10 years of unemployment benefits wouldn’t be enough because after two years we might have people taking jobs that paid less than the originally made and that would mean they would have to accept being “under-employed”, so they might as well wait it out.

    I am sorry to say but the hysteria she demonstrates has increased, brought on, I am sure, by the results of the last election.

  • December 3, 2010 at 1:37 am
    TAR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Correction – U.S. Constitution is a “dead” document. AlGore wanted us to believe it was a living and breathing document.

  • December 3, 2010 at 1:47 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Cass/Tiresis. As long as we are getting philosophical, let me jump in with some conservative thought on how we differ on how to help your fellow man. Concern for others is just not the province of leftist.

    Give someone a fish and you feed
    them for a day, teach someone to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.

    Merry Christmas!

  • December 3, 2010 at 1:55 am
    Tiresis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Tom, you attack the individual and not the issues. The issue is what we owe to our fellow citizens. The issue is how can we pay for it. The issue is can a Goldman Sachs executive afford a 39% tax rate more than a secretary? The issue is that a corporation was given certain legal rights but should not EVER be confused with a natural person. Sociailsm does not come into it; these are valid questions that should carry no baggage. Capitalism should not come into it; these are overweening issues that are not stuffed into those designations.

    While you usually make very good and reflective points, Tom, when you are not egged on by your more rabid ilk, your unemployment rant is really very unworthy of you. Don’t you read anything? Don’t you know that people ARE taking jobs at much less wage than they were earning before? Don’t you know that the average time to find a new job is eight months?

    And so what is wrong with suggesting that we also look to close loopholes for the corps that can more easily afford to pay these taxes? Trust me, the phalanxes of tax attys on retainer will make sure these corps are not overpaying…What is so wrong with looking to the very special interest loopholes instead of some poor slob’s 290/wk unemployment check? Seriously, WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH THAT?

    Are you really so smug to think that all those in bad circumstances these days were put there by their own weaknesses and failings? Are you really so smug to think that it could not happen to you?

  • December 3, 2010 at 2:05 am
    Tiresis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Tom

    DUH! What do you think I have been saying? The “unalienable rights” that I would suggest belong to us all are Good education, good opportunity, affordable healthcare, affordable food and affordable shelter. I am not suggesting “giving” away the store…but it seems that any kind of safety net for those in need gets criticized and scrutinized as “socialism” or “communism” rather than a sound investment in a productive citizen. By the same token, you have been totally silent on the TRILLIONS the fed lent to BOA, Citi, JPM, and yes, even that smug, self congratulatory group, Goldman Sachs (609,000,000, wasn’t it?)…all at one point, in doubt of collecting back in some degree or another, and all more or less sub rosa. So the big boys get their jollies and now the slob on unemployment suffers? Where is the equity in all of that?

    Merry Christmas, back at you….”and to men of good will.”

  • December 3, 2010 at 2:21 am
    TAR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m confused, what do Goldman Sachs executive compensation have to do with anything? You’re drinking that Obama koolaide playing the class warfare card. How many Goldman Sachs executives are serving in the Obama White House? If they are so bad, villans the way Obama portrays them, why does have half dozen or so of them in his White House?
    The issue is getting government out of pocketbooks! I don’t care how much Buffet or Gates makes each year. What they contribute to economic growth in hiring, charitable giving, buying business is more than 3/4 of this nation can do.
    But you have George Soros and his minions including Obama demonizing the productive in this country. Socialism has everything to do with your argument Tiresis, especially when you make a statement “what you owe your fellow citizen”. Well we don’t owe them anything!

  • December 3, 2010 at 3:01 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I know that no citizen owes another the right to confiscate his or her property for their own benefit.

    As respects unemployment, 99 weeks would seem to be enough. The Pres now wants to add 52 more but will settle for less all at a cost of several BILLION dollars in NEW spending (he doesn’t want to even use the remaining TARP funds). New spending means adding to the deficit and while I do feel for those who have been unemployed for 99 weeks, it is a matter of me robbing from my great grandkids future to pay for that. I am sure you realize that all of the wants and needs of our citizens cannot be met by simply passing the cost along.

    Anecdotally, I do know of several people who did not start looking for a job until just as their UE was about to run out. And, there have been several liberal economist (Harvard and MIT, I believe) that have stated that extending UE benefits only INCREASES UE. That, makes extending the UE a political rather than practical matter.

    And I am not going to bite on your attempted linkage between corp welfare and UE benefits. The two are dichotomous and have nothing to do with each other, except for an attempt to create a rich v. poor selection to show how grinch like conservative can be.

    As you already know, I am no fan of corporate welfare, including the government bailout of GM, a bailout done to save union pensions and by fact or design get government directly involved in industry. That fact has further fanned the socialism flame.

    By the way, I was out some years ago for 9 months and had to do consulting work and other work to keep my family afloat. I also had to change my health insurance coverage to a high deductible plan so I could afford coverage for any catastrophic illness or injury my family might have suffer. The point is that exigent cirmustances require choices that we don’t neccesarily like.

    While we are at corp taxes. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both claim they don’t pay enough in taxes. Will you join me in demanding that they fire all their tax attorneys and accountants so they can have the priviledge of paying more. Better yet, let’s ask them to shut down their charitable foundations and give that money to the Feds, after all they must believe that the Fed can do more good than the causes they champion.

    P.S. Nice to hear you are back in the fray.

  • December 3, 2010 at 5:28 am
    Tiresis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have clearly stated that they will donate the bulk of their fortunes to their foundations and to charity. They are totally laudable. They probably would rather fund their foundations because then they would have a say in how the money is spent, vs. sending it off to either the feds or the states to squander as they see fit…or to direct it into the hands of yes, Tom, the “rich.”

    Frankly, I do believe that there is a class warfare going on, but I feel that the haves are winning this battle. It is important for our society to function to hae a viable and hopeful middle class; this has really been the foundation of our riches, where a middle class son could make a computer in his garage and move it into a huge company. This is becoming harder and harder these days to have happen. The body blows in real estate, 401ks, healthcare, and education’s rising college tuition courses are sapping the hopefulness of the middle class. The tax cuts being maintained for the wealthiest (and some are very wealthy) are placing inordinate burdens on the midle class.

    If you want to pay for unemployment, just cut out farm subsidies to agribusiness; they shouldn’t need it anyway now, since they are using genetically modified seeds that are impervious to pests and other threats……

    As always, I will support spending cuts that benefit the very few (the wealthy, huge multinational corporations) in favor of cuts for the many and safety net for the many as needed. We are mortgaging our grandkids future for hedge fund millionaires (what’s wrong with the new tax proposals on hedge funds, folks) who would treat us to cake instead of bread, to paraphrase that famous social egalitarian, Marie Antoinette. If you are so worried about such mortgages, let the “rich” begin to pay a fairer share. Define the “rich” at whatever limit you want, but for heaven’s sake, let them pony up a bit more.

    A propos of your prior post about 10 years on UE and having to make tough decisions….there is an article in todays USA today about job losers. If you read the article, you will see that many of these folks have taken jobs at 20-25% of what they formerly made…and workers over 60 sometimes more. You will see that the average time for landing a new job is now 8 months….the AVERAGE time…more for workers over 55. Do you seriously think that the majority of these people are milking the system when they are wiping out their savings? using 401K funds to make up the mortgage payment? You must live in a very rarefied community if you know multiple people milking the system on a lark…

    TAR, I don’t know what your story is, but you miss all the point…as with Mike N, you are dedicated to espousing your POV and don’t LISTEN. This ain’t the wild west anymore where you can ride into town on your paint and cock your Latigo hat….and do what you want…we are way beyond that point. What you call robbing you of your rights, I call being a responsible citizen who is willing to pay their fair share if not more to insure the safety nets for my fellow citizens. Look at it in a capitalistic way, if you must; you are investing in your fellow citizens to be able to pick themselves up after some help and continue to be productive members of society. Some of these investments will work out wonderfully….some not so much…but then that is a risk with any investment, right?

  • December 4, 2010 at 11:27 am
    TAR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You don’t know what my story is? You bemoan you don’t believe there is no class warfare and yet you state the middle class this and the rich that and support spending cuts for the very few. And that’s not class warfare? Who are the risk takers? Who are the employers? The majority of the so-called wealthy? I guess you have to be a rocket scientist to under to understand if you keep attacking and vilifying those risk takers (as the liberals define as “wealthy”) who is left to take risks and create jobs? Oh the federal government. How is the federal government funded? Through taxpayers. How much should government confiscate from the rich – 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% or heck let’s take 90%, they can live on 10%? The mentality that it’s all Wallstreets fault or it’s rich’s fault we are in this mess is totally false and shows the envy of those who are jealous of success. Take a look at the private sector jobs numbers the past two years up till yesterday (Fri – 12/3) it’s anemic. and with the uncertainty with Congress not extending the so-called Bush tax cuts there is absolutely no incentive for people to take risks and to open new businesses, re-stock inventories nor hire people or even think about increasing wages. It’s hard for you people on the left to understand business does look at the impact of wages on their bottom line and if the income doesn’t support the numbers, earnings will remain level or even fall. That is a fact. Unlike the federal government who think they have an endless stream of other peoples money – unfortunately small businesses have to watch every penny that comes in and goes out. Guess what, if more money goes out month after month after month than money that comes in, what happens to small business (the supposed wealthy) – they close their doors! Unfortunately, the federal government isn’t run this way. They are fiscally irresponsible. That’s my story!!!

  • December 6, 2010 at 7:59 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The real problem with leftists is that they are so tuned into compassion that cost is NEVER a considerateion. The general principle is that healthcare, food, clothing, water, afforable housing should be provided to all but never is there any accounting for how it gets paid for. I, too, could be a liberal without that anchor holding reality to the ground and keeping my dreams and wants from an ever skyward trajectory.

    It is impossible to get a liberal to focus on prioritiies in life as ALL WANTS are priorities that must be met at all costs. We might be able to reach some consensus in governing this country if we could get them to focus on what can really be done and also recognize that we are limited in doing so because of the debt that has been accumulated from aceding to past flight of unrestrained “compassion”. But, maybe, just maybe, the intent was to eventually spread the pain to everyone, thereby making life fairer. If that was the goal, they have overachieved.

    The other thing that bothers me is their fixation with “coveting” the property of others, all while telling themselves they have a moral license to do so.

  • December 6, 2010 at 11:35 am
    Tiresis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The real problem, Tom and TAR, is that you are not fair. Compassion is not a sin. Cutting the social programs that benefit the “little guy” without casting eyes on the bennies that the “big guys” get is patently unfair. Can you tell me why you have such an imbalanced view of who is screwing who? Can you tell me why you never utter a word about the perks, bennies, subsidies, tax lopholes for the “big guys” but only those that benefit the little guys?

    You read, you know that the erosion of the middle class is ongoing. You read, you know that the income disparity within our society is the largest it has been since the Great Depression. You read, you know that the middle class is insecure. The middle class is the backbone of this country. Kill their asperations, and you kill this country.

    TAR, the job engine in this country is the SMALL businessmen, not the mega corps at this point, who are looking overseas. The mega corps are using the warchests they have gathered (via cutting workers and therefore increasing productivity) to either purchase competitors, or finance yet more “labor saving” technology, thereby cutting more jobs). The SMALL businesmen is being squeezed by the temerity of their other middle class customers who are afraid as well as the banks that refuse to extend credit even on good deals (which is beginning to loosen up a bit now, thankfully).

    I just ask that you all be fair and cas your tax cutting eyes at ALL segments. And, yes, the “big guys” and the “rich” can afford to pay more. Redefine rich to anyone making over 1,000,000…we will still be ahead.

    Just look at both ends of the sepctrum…which it appears you all never do.

  • December 6, 2010 at 11:55 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Compassion run amuck leads to coveting your neighbors goods, which, by the way, is a sin, or maybe you don’t know about the 10 Commandments.

    Your compassion is so expansive that you like the man who thinks he can warm the artic ocean with his own body heat.

    You have a complex that logic cannot penetrate akin to a liberal addiction that can only be feed by fiction rather than fact ala your comments about the middle class, the wealth moving out of the middle class ad naseum. Its time to move on.

  • December 6, 2010 at 12:13 pm
    Tiresis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Tom, you are so wrong; I covet nothing; I am tired of those who are so selective on who the burden of the slashing and burning falls on.

    I will move on when you do…and you do seem stuck in the same old rut. I am surprised that even you have no answers but stupidly revert to just palin(ooops….Freudian slip….I meant to say “plain”) old dogma liberal bashing.

    Toodles.

  • December 6, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    Vito says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nice to see you moving on Tiresis. You chastise Tom for his same old reply, however your thought process was pretty clear in this entire thread – you want what other people have, you’ve fallen for and support the class warfare mentality. It’s the (I believe someone used the term) “risk takers” who keep the economy moving forward who are being demonize by Obama, Soros and their leftist friends. Under Pelosi the so-called “wealthy” are those individuals earning $250,000 per year. That’s somehow wealthy! And you are among those who believe it’s the evil Wall STreeters and Producers who are to blame for the woes in this country. Which leads me to believe you do not believe in Capitalism or the Free Enterprise System unless you get something for nothing (i.e.healtcare).
    What’s also interesting you title this thread “Move On”. How fitting. Move On.org is another radical left wing group who is wanting to change America from what our foundation was built upon by our Founding Fathers – Freedom and Liberty to a socialistic mentality!

  • December 6, 2010 at 4:37 am
    Tiresis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I neither envy or covet that which others have; at this point in my life, I have been there and done all that…and don’t need to or want to anymore. I have followed all the rules, live in a house way below my means, and max funded my 401ks. At my age, I am in “divest” mode rather than acquire mode, since I have finally found out what is really and truly necessary and important as my hair has grayed. I haven’t had a ticket since 1974, have had one HO claim in 40 years, and to the best of my knowlege have nevere cheated anyone out of anything. I am not a churchgoer, but take very seriously the Golden rule.

    With age has come certain perspectives and observations; this is not the economy I grew up in where the days ahead could only be brighter than the ones past. Where the USA was top of the heap.

    This is now a global economy. You hear big business leaders time and time again call for more diligent education for our children so we can reamin competitive. You hear scholars discuss the economic gap that is ever widening; the necessity for higher education to keep the competitive edge but the fact that college educations are being priced out of the reach of middle class households…or forcing parents or children, or both, to “mortgage” their future for that education.

    The older I get, the more I realize that we do not live “on an island.” That helping someone when they need it usually pays off. I view social safety net programs as investment in our future, not as handouts.

    To many moderates (and I am, despite your desire to cast me as a socialist) we are increasingly dismayed at the imbalance between social good and corporate wellbeing. There is and can be a balance.

    The class warfare rhetoric junk is most often espoused by the rightists that seek to color all others that disagree with the extent of social nets we currently provide. I view it as propaganda. After all, if you paint us all as socialists, you are, in fact, the ones that are seeing “class warfare” in every social program.

    The issue is always “how much?” We have not really had a recent social debate on that in these changing times. We need to. And along with “how much” will also be “how much” tax releif do we provide and for whom? I say reserve our largesse, as it were for those that most need, including small business owners, and let those that have already benefitted help boost others on up. I agree that 250,000 is not “rich.” I am willing to escalate the number definition. What n umber would you select? Remeber, we are only talking about 3 or 4 extra percent of tax on excess income over a certain large amount….If it is good enough for Warren Buffett, it seems good enough for me.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*