Ryan's War On People in Poverty: Here We GO Again: 47% message

[bedowin62]

big right-wing Kochs terrify left-wing nutjobs

 

[OnePercenter]

We should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs. Not the job of taxpayers to fund the lame and lazy.

Here ya go!

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

 

[OnePercenter]

One thing democrats are skilled at is propaganda. How a backward reactionary party ever hijacked the word "progressive" is anybody's guess. Democrats make Putin look like a progressive. The issue ain't about helping people out of poverty. If it was, democrats would be behind an effort to streamline the "war on poverty" instead of blocking every effort to fix the failed policy that has torn Black families apart and created more poverty than it helped.

Propaganda like; 'The rich pay 40% of their income to taxes?'

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How much money do we have to spend on LBJ's failed 50 year old "war on poverty" to convince the low information left that it freaking don't work? Poverty programs have been set up by crooked democrat administrations to make government pimps rich and destroy minority families. Somehow it translates to votes for democrats.

*yawn*

Recent research from the Columbia Population Research Center at Columbia University reveals the extent to which anti-poverty programs since the 1960s have alleviated poverty for millions of Americans. The study, titled “Trends in Poverty with an Anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure,” uses a uniform measure of poverty (supplemental poverty measure or SPM) to show a dramatic drop-off in poverty rates from 1967 to 2011. From the study (emphasis added):

The OPM shows the overall poverty rates to be nearly the same in 1967 and 2011 — at 14% and 15% respectively. But our counterfactual estimates using the anchored SPM show that without taxes and other government programs, poverty would have been roughly flat at 27-29%, while with government benefits poverty has fallen from 26% to 16% — a 40% reduction. Government programs today are cutting poverty nearly in half (from 29% to 16%) while in 1967 they only cut poverty by about one percentage point.

publichealthwatch | Conservative Media?s Misleading Coverage Of The War On Poverty

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

BTW [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] overall I do respect your belief that this bill frees up more choices FOR YOU because you assume insurance is needed anyway to pay costs, so to you, it is not losing any freedom, but working within the choices anyway.

That's fine, but please understand this is the same logic of prolife advocates do not believe banning abortion would eliminate choices either because they wouldn't chose that anyway! Or why govt imposing Christian prayer wouldn't affect their freedom if "they would choose it anyway." I don't think you like when people "of other beliefs" imposing THEIR choices on you through govt.

They feel similar to you, here, where if the "choice" is needed anyway, and helps more people by "mandating it through govt," why not?

Clearly this only works if you AGREE with that choice, and would choose it anyway, or you would argue that govt is abused to push someone's beliefs or agenda, wouldn't you?

Dante if you are going to impose YOUR standards of what is free choice on
people who don't agree, think about when Christians or prolife people impose
limits on choices where they don't see any loss or threat to freedom either.

I can appreciate if this bill helps YOU protect YOUR CHOICES, but please "equally respect the free choice of others" who are deprived of freedom by these mandates that violate their beliefs and interfere with their natural freedoms.

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] It appears you are a bit confused with principle and ideology.

1) abortion: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues, ones own body and pregnancy; a medical choice that may or may not affect the life of a woman who is pregnant. It's very personal and in the opinion of many religious busy bodies or the state have no overriding interest that could possibly be of any value, unless of course one hides behind being a self-appointed protector of an unborn human being, a fetus. This choice or result of a sexual act between individuals should not be a state/government issue.

Hi Dante: Thanks for the extra effort to clarify this in detail; I think it is very important to make some distinctions here:
(1a) the issue of choice is one thing - and leads to admitting the problem is "faith-based" arguments and beliefs in defending the "right to life" equally as the "right to choice."
As long as the "right to life" arguments DEPEND on faith based arguments such as "when does life begin" and what constitutes a person protected by law, etc., then these arguments "technically" don't hold up under Constitutional requirements to keep religious bias out of govt authority and laws. Otherwise, the right to life could be defended equally as right to choice -- the problem is not letting "faith based beliefs" get imposed by law.
That's ONE issue

(1b) the other is DUE PROCESS. Even if both sides AGREED against abortion, the problem remains that punitive laws "after pregnancy occurs" are going to affect the women more than the man in the decisions made, including legal burdens and punishment if this is illegal. I believe this issue should be addressed separately from the choice/life issue.
I believe it was the "due process" issue that got the law struck down by Roe v. Wade.

2) health care insurance: read the law ad the Supreme Court opinion where it is explained why the principles involved.

The 'free choice' is to pay for health care insurance, which historically the state will end up paying for in the end, or to accept the 'shared responsibility payment' in the law, known as the penalty within the mandate, that functions as a tax for the constitutional purposes of the ruling.

See?

Again there are at least TWO different issues here, Dante

(2a) If it is a tax, then it violates the principle of "no taxation without representation"
For the taxpayers who dissent, and do not agree to the terms of the taxation, this is causing multiple layers of problems as a result.
Any person or politician who is HONEST and seeking to REPRESENT the public would LISTEN to the objections and try to work them out in good faith. Anyone who DENIES the objections and dismisses the complaints as invalid is not representing those citizens.
So the spirit of the legislation is off to begin with if it does not represent the whole public.

(2b) there are OTHER ways to pay for health care that were not even addressed.
Sorry, Dante, but it is NOT "free choice" to mandate that people buy insurance and to penalize 'all other ways' of paying for health care - especially when these "other ways" are NEEDED ANYWAY because insurance does NOT cover all costs or all people. This is punitive and regulating choices, especially where health care involves religious and spiritual choices outside of govt jurisdiction.

I mentioned prison reforms where those costs taxpayers are already paying could easily pay for educational and medical loans, for example. Also immigration and drug policy reform could also free up BILLIONS of STATE dollars to pay for health care per STATE.

Dante the problem is the President wanted to make this a FEDERAL issue so he can take control as President. He wanted to initiate action, but as President he has to keep it FEDERAL.

If the health and prison problems were delegated to STATES then GOVERNORS and local reps would have responsibility, and the President could not control that process.

Dante, I cannot tell you enough that the problems need to be addressed and represented LOCALLY by STATE.

Where the FEDERAL authority comes in
is that PEOPLE and States DO reserve equal Constitutional rights to due process, petitioning and protection of the laws.

So we should INDEED take the SPIRIT of the Constitutional laws on a Federal and empower local CITIZENS and STATES to set up Constitutional protections LOCALLY using LOCAL programs and resources to manage sustainable systems.

If we delegate this to the States and people locally there is more DIRECT access, representation and accountability.

Instead, if you go through Federal levels and Congress, then it takes a lot more process to reform and make adjustments to policies/programs needed PER STATE, and each STATE has different populations to represent and serve, so their process is different.

It is selfish, shortsighted and unfair to push policies for whole states uniformly through Congress where it naturally is going to backlog the system in conflict because too many people and interests cannot be covered by one generic policy.

The federal law should have simply made it mandatory for states to manage their own health care where nobody is forced to foot the bill for expenses from other people's irresponsibility except where people AGREE to pay for those costs.

So if people AGREE to pay for insurance, or pay for hospitals or ER for others,
whatever methods or groups citizens AGREE to pay for, everyone remains free to meet their terms and work out the plans; but people CANNOT force taxpayers to pay, for example, for drug addicts who refuse to get help or commit crimes and send people to the hospital, or pay for people either to have abortions if they don't believe in that or pay to have kids as welfare tickets if they don't agree. States can set up microlending with requirements to pay back welfare, similar to educational loans, and work with charities or schools to set up medical programs where people work off their education, internships or residencies, by serving the public through clinics and teaching hospitals.

There are any number of ways to cover health care, especially by addressing prison and immigration reforms at the same time.

The federal level could oversee the security and public regulations, but the states have to address and represent their local populations to equally include all citizens.
the federal level is not designed for those specific needs.

So that is where the individual liberties or free choice are completely wiped out by these federal mandates.

The mandates selectively penalize options other than "insurance" while politically granting exemptions to whole groups. So it is not equal protection or equal choice, but only serves certain political agenda and criteria.

It makes NO sense to penalize choices such as 'charitable donations' to pay for health care or even medical facilities, programs or education directly,
when all these other avenues are NEEDED ANYWAY.

If health care reform were pursued by investing FIRST in developing programs needed to PROVIDE for public health, education and services, then people would naturally use insurance and other means to manage all the costs and services.

Instead the legislation sought to mandate insurance first, which deprived citizens of liberty to pay for health care and develop programs by FREE WILL, by business, charitable and educational outreach.

So it is basically PUNISHING people for NOT depending on federal govt to mandate insurance. Instead it should be REWARDING states and people for setting up better coverage and programs for people, and respecting natural freedom to create these locally.

You are still confused about individual and collective choices, the role of elected government in making laws. And this is nonsensical: "deprived of freedom by these mandates that violate their beliefs and interfere with their natural freedoms."

(1a): abortion: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues.

(1b): Huh?

(2a): No it doesn't. We all have representation. You lack the most basic understanding here. Civics 101

(2b): Congress chose how to pay. An elected Congress that represents ALL the people.

For most rational people health care does NOT involve "religious and spiritual choices outside of govt jurisdiction." There are of course situations that arise where religious beliefs may butt up against science, technology, and medicine. When society and government has a compelling interest in specific cases the law gets involved.

Whatever you are ranting and raving about the President, it was the duly elected Congress who enacted the health care law, not the President.

READ the law and the ruling legal opinion. You have strayed off the reservation in your thinking and reasoning (if you want to call it that) and your arguments

 

[whitehall]

One thing democrats are skilled at is propaganda. How a backward reactionary party ever hijacked the word "progressive" is anybody's guess. Democrats make Putin look like a progressive. The issue ain't about helping people out of poverty. If it was, democrats would be behind an effort to streamline the "war on poverty" instead of blocking every effort to fix the failed policy that has torn Black families apart and created more poverty than it helped.

Propaganda like; 'The rich pay 40% of their income to taxes?'

No, propaganda that suggests a single republican in the House of Representatives would ruin the great "war against poverty" that LBJ created.

 

[emilynghiem]

[MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] I am going to stop in the middle of this and give you rep on one of these msgs
just for taking the time and effort for nitpicking these pieces apart. If more people had done this a long time ago, we would be too busy solving each problem to fight politically over Roe v Wade and abortion by throwing all these individual conflicts together in a stew.

Thank you, and please continue until you make me spell it all out and you correct each point until we AGREE what points can and cannot be resolved. My point is to make public policy based on what we CAN agree with, and QUIT fighting over the points we cannot. I want to show the problems CAN BE SOLVED WITHOUT having to force points in conflict.

I am going to split the "Abortion Roe v Wade" issue into a separate post from
the health care issue, so we can go into more detail and hash every point out
where you see there is conflict. All sides need to spell out their issues this way,
and maybe we'd actually get somewhere instead of politically deadlocking.

A = Abortion legality issues
(B will be the health care reform issues)
========================

A. Two key conflicts regarding Abortion
1. the issue of abortion itself
2. the issue of HOW LAWS ARE WRITTEN AND ENFORCED and why illegality and penalties cannot be LEGISLATED because "even if abortion was murder" the legal process of penalizing the WOMAN would impose a burden to prove she was FORCED etc.

My point in SEPARATING 2 from 1, is that EVEN IF PEOPLE CAN NEVER AGREE ON 1
(which involved the religious differences and beliefs/perceptions etc.)
We can still address what is wrong with 2, and quit fighting over point 1.

[As for point #1, because right to life beliefs should be equally protected as right to choice,
the prolife could argue they are being "discriminated against politically by govt
UNLESS their beliefs in #1 ARE recognized EQUALLY" and public laws are based on #2 instead which does not diminish, exclude or discriminate against prolife views in #1.
OTHERWISE if laws are based on arguments "taking sides" on #1, this imposes a bias.]

So we could still acknowledge and defend the "equal right to believe in prolife views in #1"
and STILL have "prochoice views" DEFENDED based on #2. So there is no argument.

There is NO NEED either to defend, push or attack prolife/prochoice beliefs on point #1
if ALL arguments can still be made using point #2. And I believe conflicts can be resolved by focusing on #2, after we quit threatening to violate beliefs on either side on #1.

I have not found ONE PERSON WHO DISAGREED WITH THE FACT THAT
2. laws about abortion "after the fact" are going to affect women more than men
so this is NEVER going to be fair and equally protective/applied/enforced.
1. choosing to be prolife does NOT depend on making laws forcing this; so all measures to stop abortion can still be exercised freely as in #1 without requiring any legal mandates.
All Prolife activism, outreach, education is PROOF this can be done without laws forcing it.

Dante this is VERY important to make this distinction between point 1 and point 2.

I have actually convinced many conservative staunch prolife believers to respect the Constitutional standards preventing bans and punitive laws because of #2, where this does not affect or depend on their beliefs in #1. So there is NO NEED to force #1 on people,
because we really need to focus on #2.

(1a): abortion: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues.

(1b): Huh?

RE: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues.

Dante this is true but there are THREE levels where a different choice can be made
and where "govt can intrude on personal choices":

0. the point at which the COUPLE decides to have sex if it is consensual, or rape/coercion occurs, or something in between where the responsibility between the two people is on a completely private level. So if abuse occurs this cannot be policed by govt, but has to be identified and resolved personally by the people. If no crime is determined, it's personal.

This is the LAST point where the man could possibly be held equally responsible as the woman, if not more if he commits coercion rape fraud or some other abuse against her.

Clearly the govt cannot make or enforce any laws on this level, but that is the last level where there is even a CHANCE of holding men and women equally responsible for the choice to have sex in the first place. so clearly the rest gets skewed from there, toward imposing on women more than men, made worse by threatening govt regulations or bans.

1. the point at which the woman goes through abortion.
again this should be a private medical decision, and given the research and information we have collected by now on abortion, it should be easier to reduce the incidence of abortion simply by education and free choice.

2. the process by which government would "enforce and execute laws by due process" IF regulations and penalties were imposed.
If this is after the abortion, that is different from trying to use govt to intervene during the pregnancy, or intervene before the sex and pregnancy occurs.

Dante it is a separate level of law
if people were going to write and enforce ordinances regarding "relationship abuse" "rape" "unwanted pregnancy" and "unwanted abortion" BEFORE pregnancy occurs
OR
if people want to ban and restrict the abortion providers
OR
if people are trying to impose fines/penalties AFTER abortion occurs

The last two levels affect WOMEN more than men.
So that is why the laws will never be fair.
HOW the LAWS are written, and what is involved with ENFORCEMENT and REGULATIONS is a SEPARATE issue from ABORTION itself.

[this is like arguing if the ACT of willful termination in executions or euthanasia IN ITSELF
is right wrong justifiable or allowable in some cases
versus the PROCESS the govt goes through to
DECIDE if a crime is committed or how it enforced regulations or imposes punishment.

Those two levels are SEPARATE. is that more clear?]

 

[emilynghiem]

1. on liberty deprived by federal mandates in ACA

You are still confused about individual and collective choices, the role of elected government in making laws. And this is nonsensical: "deprived of freedom by these mandates that violate their beliefs and interfere with their natural freedoms."

I will separate this into another post B for the health care and mandates issue.

Cont'd [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]: I couldn't find where to rep you, did you turn this off? If you would like one little rep from me, when we are both online at the same time, can I coordinate with you, for you to turn it on, let me rep your msg, and you turn it off again. Woudl that work?

B. health care insurance mandates and individual liberties before ACA was passed

What I was trying to say here, and sorry if I bungled it up:
the federal govt imposing mandates requiring citizens to buy private insurance or else pay a fine to govt to go into govt health care
EXCLUDES, DISCRIMINATES and PENALIZES people who believe in paying for their own health care FREELY and fully by themselves WITHOUT dependence or financial regulations from govt forcing them to pay into a govt system THEY DO NOT BELIEVE federal govt has Constitutional authority to be involved in (WITHOUT a Constitutional Amendment where the States ratify and authorize federal govt to step in and oversee or manage this nationally).

Some people believe in STATES voting on and setting up health care NOT federal govt.
Some people believe in PEOPLE paying for health care through business charity or schools and NOT depending either on State or Federal govt.

NOTE: Even if people disagree on the concept, they can AGREE on the PROCESS of going through a Constitutional amendment to AUTHORIZE federal govt first, BEFORE enacting law

So that was disagreed on also. So there are SEVERAL LEVELS where either the law was not followed directly, or BELIEFS were violated and so the law was not followed indirectly.

So YES the mandates and the federal authority to write, reform and enforce health care legislation that regulates insurance by FORCING people to BUY and PARTICIPATE
under FEDERAL TERMS and regulations -- this DOES take away rights we formally had to make these decisions ourselves WITHOUT fine or penalty much less regulations on our choices.

People used to be able to choose minimal plans, similar to buying just liability insurance or the minimum, and not being required to pay for full coverage.

This health care system depends on people having to pay for insurance BEFORE they need it; we used to have the choice to wait until we NEEDED to be covered to buy it. This is like choosing to buy a car and only buying insurance AFTER you buy the car.
NOT being forced to buy car insurance before you need it.

Dante can you compare the choices people had BEFORE the ACA was passed,
and the choices people have now, and see that people are facing fines or added costs
they didn't have to pay before?

2. RE Representation and beliefs

(2a): No it doesn't. We all have representation. You lack the most basic understanding here. Civics 101

(2b): Congress chose how to pay. An elected Congress that represents ALL the people.

For most rational people health care does NOT involve "religious and spiritual choices outside of govt jurisdiction." There are of course situations that arise where religious beliefs may butt up against science, technology, and medicine. When society and government has a compelling interest in specific cases the law gets involved.

2a. NO Dante, I think you underestimate my views by assuming I have representation.
I have not found anyone who could represent and defend my views but myself.
I believe in CONSENSUS on laws and CONSENT of the governed by full and equal
inclusion and resolving all conflicts. I am at odds with 99% of govt/legal system that does not make decisions by consensus or consent.

So no, I am not represented by people in govt who believe in less than consent.
I believe in AGREEING to go by a different threshold -- such as 2/3 or 51% majority -- IF PEOPLE AGREE TO THIS BY LAW.

But cases where religious or religiously held political beliefs are involved, that is NOT up to majority rule to decide someone's BELIEFS.
To protect people's BELIEFS from infringement, I believe in conflict resolution on a local/individual level and consensus
on the last level where this is possible, and then separating jurisdiction after that.

2b. As for Congress, the split on this ACA vote was decidedly by PARTY.

So that is like if a bill passed with 51% of the Christians voting for it, and 49% of the Atheists against it, where the Atheists complained the bill, language or procedures in it DISCRIMINATED against them because they did not believe in the same things as the people voting for it.

If half the nation sided with the Christians and half with the Atheists, I would agree with the Atheists arguing they are "not represented" by this bill and their religious beliefs or differences were "DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AND EXCLUDED" by majority vote of Christians.

Especially if the bill involves a TAX that the Atheists are protesting, I would look and see WHY there is a bias in that law that is making half the nation protest.

Even if a majority passed it, that doesn't mean there isn't some flaw or bias
that makes that law UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Note: It happens to be MORE visible if the split is divided clearly by groups.

a Religious belief or religiously held political belief does not require the holder to be a member of the majority in order to defend their belief from government discrimination.

So even if 1 person or 1% protested that a bill was discriminatory,
I would look into that bias and see if the law could be corrected to eliminate the flaw. that is just Constitutional duty and principle and respect for equal protection and representation.

Otherwise, even if a law has majority support, it can still be unconstitutional by the First or Fourteenth Amendments and in violation of the Code of Ethics if it is partisan.

Clearly this ACA is partisan. That should be a big clue there is a bias going on.
It is disturbing that instead of ADDRESSING and RESOLVING the bias or conflicts,
the emphasis has been on fighting opponents back and forth POLITICALLY.

I believe all Congress members who touched this bill should be responsible for addressing all conflicts and correcting it; and put the bill on a moratorium until it is resolved; the separate parties can implement and participate/fund it voluntarily, but cannot regulate "other people's choices and standards of paying for health care" as long as they don't impose costs on other people or parties who disagree; and let each respect their choices.

Dante, that is what would represent me.

Anything less is imposing some political standard or "lack of faith that consensus is not possible" which is violating my constitutional belief and right to pursue and defend consensus on law. Since no lawyer will represent my view, I just have to argue for myself.
The whole legal system is based on adversarial competition, with one side beating out the other instead of equal protection of both sides, so that is why there is a conflict of interest with lawyers and the legal system. Most people agree with fighting because they don't believe you can win by asking nicely and resolving conflicts to reach a consensus.

Because I have this view, this belief in Restorative Justice, this proves that the systems and views that are NOT based on the same, ARE religiously spiritually and/or politically biased.

You can say that "most people do not see any of these choices as spiritual" and that just makes the matter worse of why people like me do not have "equal representation."

Once our views are recognized as VALID and EQUAL choices, then maybe these can be equally included and defended in laws instead of overruled next to other political beliefs.

3. Executive Involvement and Blockage of the process of reforming ACA

Whatever you are ranting and raving about the President, it was the duly elected Congress who enacted the health care law, not the President.

READ the law and the ruling legal opinion. You have strayed off the reservation in your thinking and reasoning (if you want to call it that) and your arguments [/COLOR]

3a. The President did not seek to correct or reform the Bill to remove unconstitutional flaws as he did with the AZ Immigration bill. His duty is to enforce the Constitution, and he clearly kept pushing the bill "as is" for Partisan power and REFUSED to sign any changes AT ALL to ACA in the proposed Budget because he did not want to give in and compromise.

(Note: Obama agreed to oppose the Marriage bill as unconstitutional THAT WAS VOTED ON AND PASSED by LEGALLY ELECTED REPS and EVEN VOTES DIRECTLY
and still "not PERFECTLY Constitutional" because it left out people of other BELIEFS,
and after the immigration bill as unconstitutional THAT WAS ALSO PASSED IN AZ USING THE GIVEN REPRESENTATIONAL SYSTEM,
but would not sign on the Budget passed by Congress if it changed ACA which is full of contested points on Constitutional grounds)

Dante: are you going to say that the DOMA and the AZ bill should have remained because BOTH were passed by Representatives duly elected?
Or will you agree that is NOT ENOUGH to guarantee it is constitutional.

To their credit, the Republican leadership overcame much division threatening to block it completely and managed an AGREEMENT to revise just TWO POINTS (the tax on medical devices and a one year extension on the individual mandate since the employer mandate already got a one year extension)

Given the President's duty to enforce the Constitution, and to protect citizens EQUALLY as he sought to do with IMMIGRANTS and with GAYS,
he could and should equally defend the rights of citizens to Constitutional beliefs, as he did with these other cases that had unconstitutional flaws.

but he went out of his way to do the OPPOSITE.
He argued that the bill in Congress 'was not a tax' and so it had a chance to be stopped by the Supreme Court where the "commerce clause" interpretation was struck down.
but then he had lawyers argue before the Supreme Court that "it WAS a tax" in order to let it continue on since the "commerce clause argument" was eliminated.

Had Obama been seeking to CORRECT the objections and RESOLVE the conflicts, so that ALL people and ALL beliefs/views were EQUALLY represented as REQUIRED by the Fourteenth Amendment, he wouldn't have argued "both ways" to try to win for ONE side
OVER the other, to further EXCLUDE beliefs by which the mandates are unconstitutional.

He is clearly acting by PARTISAN interest, which is DISCRIMINATORY BY PARTY, over the Constitutional duty to represent the ALL the public equally. Thus in violation of Constitutional duty and Code of Ethics for Govt Service. ethics-commission.net

Obama is acting in collusion with the Democrats in Congress who refuse to address contested issues with this bill. Anyone who puts the Constitution first BEFORE party politics would seek RESOLUTION NOT IMPOSITION that excludes people's beliefs.

3b. As for the law and the ruling opinion.
Since both were split nearly 50/50, this shows that half the nation is represented
and half is not. In order to represent ALL the public EQUALLY, ALL views would have to be INCLUDED. otherwise the bill and the ruling are Unconstitutional by discriminating by creed and party. The numbers and the complaints/defenses by people clearly show a 50/50 split.

but beliefs are NOT dependent on "majority rule" to be protected from exclusion by govt.

Examples of beliefs:
the bill was originally passed as a REFORM to existing public health act and NOT as a tax.
because it mixed the two, half the people believe it requires a Constitutional amendment, half the people don't. half the people believe it is justified as general welfare or under the commerce clause, half the people don't. half the people believe federal govt has the authority to set up health care or move toward singlepayer, half the people don't. half the people agree the federal govt has the right to mix taxing and health care requirements with "private insurance" and "mandates" to make people buy it, half the people do not.

It isn't "just disagreeing with paying fines" it is NOT BELIEVING federal govt has that authority, which is even stronger.

to be EQUALLY INCLUSIVE and NOT discriminate against ALL these different BELIEFS people have, then ALL would have to be resolved and satisfied or else SEPARATE JURISDICTION by state, party or other affiliated group that DOES represent ALL PEOPLE.

Neither the bill nor the court ruling was passed with consensus, but was split almost 50/50
(with the majority of support from liberals/Democrats and majority
of objection from conservatives/Republicans --
So that TELLS me that (i) something was wrong and left unresolved.
(ii) the conflict and reason it cannot be resolved is PARTISAN due to differences in POLITICAL BELIEFS, and that's why they cannot be resolved the way the bill is written.
it already excludes or divides people by belief and would have to be completely changed to overcome this level of conflict involving deeply held BELIEFS that will not change.

Just ignoring the objections and assuming the beliefs don't matter as long as the vote overrules them DOESN'T SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS -- they still remain anyway!
So WHY NOT ADDRESS THEM. That is what I don't get.

Why not WRITE corrections instead of fighting any reform on this bill?
Why not WORK WITH the objections instead of excluding those beliefs as "invalid"?

On a bill as sensitive about personal choices as health care and how to pay for it,
any federal law should be so generic where the public can AGREE on it:
like requiring states to make sure their citizens health care is covered WITHOUT requiring costs or labor of people or government in ways that taxpayers do not agree to pay
or else any money states get from govt has to be paid back to deter abuse waste or losses.

P.S. Dante if you make it through the end of this discussion and we actually resolve 2 or 3 points,
if I can't find a way to give you rep, can I pay for your membership or something else to show appreciation?
I think you are really heroic to follow this through to the end. If we can't agree on other points, if we can at least agree that the beliefs for and against will not change and
should not be forced one way or another by govt, but both sets of beliefs should be equally included, respected and protected without discrimination or penalty, then I will consider that a victory.
If even one person gets this, like you, I believe the Democrat Party and the Greens can be worked with to organize support to set up Singlepayer without imposing on others.
If NOBODY gets this, and the whole liberal/Democrat support for ACA is all based on "imposing politically through force of federal govt" without equally including or even considering other beliefs as valid,
I believe the Democrat Party should be sued. If this is something that can be corrected and resolved VOLUNTARILY that means there is hope for the party.
I need to know if this can be addressed and resolved from within, or if the party is no more than a cult and its members refuse to make any corrections, then I agree it should be shut down.
I will try to write to my Congress rep and Senators one last time, and will include any points that you can clarify and help me resolve if this is even possible! Thank you Dante.

 

[initforme]

As long as there are no tax breaks for the affluent then make the cuts I guess. Somehow I can see big business and the uber wealthy getting tax breaks while the middle class is asked to pay more. If that's part of the deal, don't expect people to support it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear [MENTION=43400]OnePercenter[/MENTION]: Have you ever tried training workers at 15.00 an hour, much less 20.00?

What makes you think paying people more will magically produce better work quality so that the company can afford to pay that much PER HOUR?
And if the managers are expected to supervise the same people currently paid 10-14.00 and try to get them to produce as much as TWO PEOPLE per hour,
what about the extra work the MANAGERS would have to do?

Have you ever worked at jobs that required whole floors of people working AT THE SAME TIME.
4 people working at the same time is about 100.00 an hour at the rate you propose.

So what about jobs that require teams of 20-40 people?
In order to get shipments packed and loaded SAFELY, for example.

To afford to pay the workers, they'd have to do the SAME WORK using HALF the team.
At manufacturing jobs, what you propose may not even be SAFE.

Reducing the staff to pay them more can cause other complications on the job.
Have you ever considered, much less physically TRIED OUT what you propose?

We should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs. Not the job of taxpayers to fund the lame and lazy.

Here ya go!

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

 

[emilynghiem]

Americans today spend almost a trillion dollars in hidden costs and in just preparing their tax returns. This is in addition to the payments they regularly make to the IRS. Each year they work full time for the government until April 21st just to pay their taxes. Their time and their money could be better spent if they were better able to make their own decisions on how to spend both.

I believe my FaST Tax Plan could be one of the best methods of implementing this. It would immediately solve most of these problems and move in a timely manner toward cementing a final solution. I believe at the same time it would be flexible enough to allow Americans to evaluate each change and make adjustments along the way.

With the FaST tax plan the first step would be replacing what we now have with a Flat tax. Which still would be an income tax but which could be temporary. Of necessity, at the same time, the process would begin of amending the U. S. Constitution by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment currently authorizing our present income tax. Since repeal requires a vote of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress plus approval by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, this may or may not take some time. So while experiencing the merits of continuing with a Flat tax, citizens could fully debate whether to continue with a Flat tax on income after repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment or make a move to replace it with a Sales Tax on consumption. It would be their choice. And in any event at that point there would be only ONE type of tax in place. We all know what revenue hungry politicians do when two taxing systems are in place at the same time.

I personally support moving to a national Sales Tax as it would immediately change our system from penalizing the production of income to penalizing consumption, leaving each citizen more in control of how much tax he or she paid. And to take care of those with lower income, who of necessity pay more tax as a percent of their income, they could be given a rebate in some amount. And for those in states who already receive much of their revenue from a sales tax, adjustments by these states with a transition over time could be possible.

There are many other benefits. It would immediately simplify the tax code, eliminate loopholes and rates and reduce the cost of compliance. The government would receive revenue from the underground economy which it is not receiving now. The tax would be a specific and direct one allowing Americans on each purchase, each day, to be able to question what they were getting for their money. Pressure would likely be brought to bear on government to spend wisely and efficiently so that the sales tax rate might be reduced.

And most importantly with a likely cut in tax rates for each American the strong economic growth that would ensue would mirror that of both the Democrat administrations of Coolidge and Kennedy and the Republican administrations of Reagan and Bush. Each cut the tax rate and the total tax revenue received by the government that year increased dramatically. We ALL wish for this.

Vern Wuensche voteforvern.com | take America back.

My friend Vern sent me this tax reform proposal.

 

[jasonnfree]

We should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs. Not the job of taxpayers to fund the lame and lazy.

The taxpayers supported your son dubya for eight years and he was lame and lazy.

 

[Slyhunter]

We have 3 choices.
1. Pay everyone a living wage.
2. Subsidize everyone who doesn't earn a living wage.
3. or have our working poor live like this -->

 

[emilynghiem]

We have 3 choices.
1. Pay everyone a living wage.
2. Subsidize everyone who doesn't earn a living wage.
3. or have our working poor live like this -->

How about organize community campuses in every district
combining housing, education and jobs and training?

So as people develop skills, they move up, similar to classes in school.
And let each community organize its own schools, businesses,
and nonprofits to manage the training and internships.

http://www.campusplan.org

music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs

Earned Amnesty

 

[bedowin62]

that 47% had it MUCH BETTER WHEN REPUBS RAN THE COUNTRY

the war on the poor is coming from you left-wing nutjobs; RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS

libz are losers who lie to themselves

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]

you keep phrasing differences of opinion as discrimination if one side wins.

The PPACA on wikipedia may have some issues, but reading it should help show where and how your arguments are flawed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

you can go from there to original sources


Conservatives and Republicans have no true and honest arguments against the 'mandates'

When President Bill Clinton proposed a healthcare reform bill in 1993 that included a mandate for employers to provide health insurance to all employees through a regulated marketplace of health maintenance organizations, Republican Senators proposed an alternative that would have required individuals, but not employers, to buy insurance.[50] Ultimately the Clinton plan failed amid an unprecedented barrage of negative advertising funded by politically conservative groups and the health insurance industry and due to concerns that it was overly complex.[52] After failing to obtain a comprehensive reform of the healthcare system, Clinton negotiated a compromise with the 105th Congress to instead enact the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 1997.[53]
John Chafee

The 1993 Republican alternative, introduced by Senator John Chafee as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a "universal coverage" requirement with a penalty for noncompliance—an individual mandate—as well as subsidies to be used in state-based 'purchasing groups'.[54] Advocates for the 1993 bill included prominent Republicans who today oppose a mandate, such as Senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, and Kit Bond.[55][56] Of the 43 Republicans Senators from 1993, 20 supported the HEART Act.[48][57] Another Republican proposal, introduced in 1994 by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), the Consumer Choice Health Security Act, contained an individual mandate with a penalty provision;[58] however, Nickles subsequently removed the mandate from the bill, stating he had decided "that government should not compel people to buy health insurance".[59] At the time of these proposals, Republicans did not raise constitutional issues with the mandate; Mark Pauly, who helped develop a proposal that included an individual mandate for George H.W. Bush, remarked, "I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax."[48]

 

[bedowin62]

we simply cannot afford to cut anti-poverty programs at the rate this failed President Obama; and his failing Jackazz Party are CREATING POOR PEOPLE!

 

[Bush92]

The war on people is when the federal government raises taxes on hard working American's to give to those who want to rip-off the system.

 

[Bush92]

We have 3 choices.
1. Pay everyone a living wage.
2. Subsidize everyone who doesn't earn a living wage.
3. or have our working poor live like this -->

Put them on a ship back to Hong Kong. Not my problem!

 

[Slyhunter]

We have 3 choices.
1. Pay everyone a living wage.
2. Subsidize everyone who doesn't earn a living wage.
3. or have our working poor live like this -->

Put them on a ship back to Hong Kong. Not my problem!

That kind of attitude will cost the Republicans the election.
The poor vote too.