Do you support Enriching Corporations through Legislation

[Darkwind]

Except that you cannot Constitutionally, require people to pay for anything they do not wish to pay for.

Try that one with the IRS - try it with the cop who tickets you for not having auto insurance. sorry, that's just pure BS - please show the applicable section of the constitution.

Requiring people to purchase insurance IS requiring them to contribute to their own healthcare costs. No matter how hard you try to spin it otherwise. You're just very clearly wrong about that.

And yet you have not. You talk about the constitution and ample evidence in history but you can't produce ANY of this abundant evidence?

So, who gets to decide what is best for society when fully 2/3's of society disagrees with what is best for them?

Since you are so up on history - ALL OF HISTORY - then I'm sure you must have caught a class at some time or another on representative democracy and how it works. If not, then maybe you would be better served to spend a little less time in Pandora's Box and a little more time in a civics class.

Just MHO.

Your HO is flawed, and you do NOT see the distiction...

And he never will because he is conditioned by the state to think that they, not the people, know what is best for society.

I wonder if he knows that socialism fails when he runs out of other peoples money?

At any rate, let us hope that when the democrats lose the congress that the people who are elected will have the intelligence to follow the will of the people and remove the health care bill if it manages to make it out of committee and gets passed.

 

[Darkwind]

Pilgrim - I've enjoyed it - as I almost always do when we agree to disagree about something. Gotta fly. Merry Christmas all - I apologize if I have insulted any of you. I really do respect your right to hold and express your own opinion and I'm sorry for every time I have failed to disagree respectfully.

Not an excuse but I've been in a bad mood lately. I'm sorry to those of you I've taken it out on. You don't deserve that.

A very merry Christmas to you. May the new year find you and yours in the very best of health.

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe I'm misreading this, but are you advocating allowing migrant workers that could be paid less than minimum wage to come in and take jobs from American citizens?

Since American citizens obviously aren't doing this work, otherwise you wouldn't have crops rotting in the fields, then they arent taking jobs from anyone. So yes, that is what I am advocating.
Free movement of labor and capital is the real conservative position.

So the way to save American agriculture is get a bunch of mexicans being paid 50 cents an hour to work our fields?

Did I write that anywhere? No, I did not.
But restricting free movement of labor and capital is going to cost this country much of its agriculture. If you are really concerned about the ag business you might want to start there.
Subsidies are the most inefficient tax there is, making consumers pay twice: once as higher prices at the checkout and again as higher taxes to pay for the subsidy. Dump it.

 

[The T]

Except that you cannot Constitutionally, require people to pay for anything they do not wish to pay for.

Try that one with the IRS - try it with the cop who tickets you for not having auto insurance. sorry, that's just pure BS - please show the applicable section of the constitution.
Requiring people to purchase insurance IS requiring them to contribute to their own healthcare costs. No matter how hard you try to spin it otherwise. You're just very clearly wrong about that.
And yet you have not. You talk about the constitution and ample evidence in history but you can't produce ANY of this abundant evidence?

So, who gets to decide what is best for society when fully 2/3's of society disagrees with what is best for them?

Since you are so up on history - ALL OF HISTORY - then I'm sure you must have caught a class at some time or another on representative democracy and how it works. If not, then maybe you would be better served to spend a little less time in Pandora's Box and a little more time in a civics class.

Just MHO.

Just about all of this has been answered before. But I'll just throw out a few examples from history on dictators knowing was it best for society.

The workers of the former Soviet Union were all for Lenin. How'd that work out for them? The people who have suffered under Mao Tse Tung were just malcontents and didn't know what was best for society, did they? They are still paying that price. How many tyrants do you need listed?

BTW...I do know how a representative government works. The Representatives are to do the bidding of their Constituents or face being removed from office. A majority of the constituents of the WHOLE country are against this health care because THEY know it is bad for society. The current representatives of our country know this as well and yet they are going against the will of the people.

Just remember. What can be done can be undone. The Democrats are going to lose big this cycle. because they do NOT know what is best for society.

Not that I disagree with you? Pay heed to what Senator Demint read here on the Senate Floor?

DEMINT: There's one provision that I found particularly troubling, and it's under Section C titled, "Limitation on changes to this subsection." And I quote: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." This is not legislation, it's not law. This is a rule change. It's a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

SOURCE

Guess what he was referring to?

In deference to the OP? I apologize if this is swatted by the OP as Off-Topic...

You are however correct, DW.

 

[antagon]

it depends... congress is set up to back biz anyhow, being elected at such great expense and all. i just want them to be open and up-front with their legislation so i know what kind of corporation to start up.

 

[The T]

Try that one with the IRS - try it with the cop who tickets you for not having auto insurance. sorry, that's just pure BS - please show the applicable section of the constitution.

Requiring people to purchase insurance IS requiring them to contribute to their own healthcare costs. No matter how hard you try to spin it otherwise. You're just very clearly wrong about that.

And yet you have not. You talk about the constitution and ample evidence in history but you can't produce ANY of this abundant evidence?
Since you are so up on history - ALL OF HISTORY - then I'm sure you must have caught a class at some time or another on representative democracy and how it works. If not, then maybe you would be better served to spend a little less time in Pandora's Box and a little more time in a civics class.

Just MHO.

Your HO is flawed, and you do NOT see the distiction...

And he never will because he is conditioned by the state to think that they, not the people, know what is best for society.

I wonder if he knows that socialism fails when he runs out of other peoples money?

At any rate, let us hope that when the democrats lose the congress that the people who are elected will have the intelligence to follow the will of the people and remove the health care bill if it manages to make it out of committee and gets passed.

Which is in my humble view an affront to Liberty itself. The people [Better known AS the marketplace] are in a much better position to maipulate thn the Government by thier choices than by the heavy hand of Government...

Which I belive is the premise of this thread.

Government is in this for their power at the behest of a few whiney-ass malcontents that thought it better to NOT educate themselves and be producers in Society...

 

[kyzr]

The "cash for clunkers" program is a perfect example of what I hate. I don't want US taxpayer dollars going to foreign corporations. I'd rather see US jobs created and US stockholders rewarded with legislation, not foreign corporations benefitting.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Try that one with the IRS - try it with the cop who tickets you for not having auto insurance. sorry, that's just pure BS - please show the applicable section of the constitution.
Requiring people to purchase insurance IS requiring them to contribute to their own healthcare costs. No matter how hard you try to spin it otherwise. You're just very clearly wrong about that.
And yet you have not. You talk about the constitution and ample evidence in history but you can't produce ANY of this abundant evidence?
Since you are so up on history - ALL OF HISTORY - then I'm sure you must have caught a class at some time or another on representative democracy and how it works. If not, then maybe you would be better served to spend a little less time in Pandora's Box and a little more time in a civics class.

Just MHO.

Just about all of this has been answered before. But I'll just throw out a few examples from history on dictators knowing was it best for society.

The workers of the former Soviet Union were all for Lenin. How'd that work out for them? The people who have suffered under Mao Tse Tung were just malcontents and didn't know what was best for society, did they? They are still paying that price. How many tyrants do you need listed?

BTW...I do know how a representative government works. The Representatives are to do the bidding of their Constituents or face being removed from office. A majority of the constituents of the WHOLE country are against this health care because THEY know it is bad for society. The current representatives of our country know this as well and yet they are going against the will of the people.

Just remember. What can be done can be undone. The Democrats are going to lose big this cycle. because they do NOT know what is best for society.

Not that I disagree with you? Pay heed to what Senator Demint read here on the Senate Floor?

DEMINT: There's one provision that I found particularly troubling, and it's under Section C titled, "Limitation on changes to this subsection." And I quote: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." This is not legislation, it's not law. This is a rule change. It's a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

SOURCE

Guess what he was referring to?

In deference to the OP? I apologize if this is swatted by the OP as Off-Topic...

You are however correct, DW.

You should make a thread about that.....i think there might be one already but that needs a giant light shined on it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The "cash for clunkers" program is a perfect example of what I hate. I don't want US taxpayer dollars going to foreign corporations. I'd rather see US jobs created and US stockholders rewarded with legislation, not foreign corporations benefitting.

Why do you think several health insurance lobbyists are attending the martha coakley fundraiser in washington DC tonight?

The health care bill is GOOD FOR THEM and they want Coakley to beat brown so they get their promised taxdollars from their government friends.