The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

Thread: Is health-care reform constitutional?

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    the 16th amendment deals with income tax. taxes still have the limits of needing to be enumerated. The government does not have the right to tax on inactivity of commerce the constitution only deals with activity of commerce so that will have to be decided in courts.

  2. #12
    Senior Member HuntsmanTollers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Swansea, IL
    Posts
    123

    Default

    I understand the federal government has the ability to tax. Not going to argue that or the limits of what should be taxed. However, when has the federal government set different limits on taxation just based upon what state you live in?
    Huntsman Tollers
    Matt & Julie Martin

  3. #13
    Senior Member Hoosier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    There are many limits of Federal power, but not too many when it comes to taxation. These were granted in the original Constitution except for those granted in the 16th Amendment ("The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."). Even at the time of the Revolution, the issue was not the taxes levied but the fact that they were levied without representation. That is the people's defense. Vote the bums out. Politicians have long known that the electorate is more likely to vote politicians out for raising taxes than for any other act.
    This in effect gives the federal unlimited power. If they can take away your freedom to determine what commerce to engage in, then they can totally control you. They are using taxes as a weapon, against their own people.

    I don't believe the election booth is any longer a place we as Americans can change government, that change will only come at the point of a gun.

  4. #14
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier View Post
    This in effect gives the federal unlimited power. If they can take away your freedom to determine what commerce to engage in, then they can totally control you. They are using taxes as a weapon, against their own people.

    I don't believe the election booth is any longer a place we as Americans can change government, that change will only come at the point of a gun.
    Democratic elections provide an opportunity for the electorate to affect their government in dramatic ways, but do not guarantee wisdom. However, I would certainly rather trust the electorate than some idiot with a gun who thinks he should be making the decisions on how we should all live.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Hoosier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Democratic elections provide an opportunity for the electorate to affect their government in dramatic ways, but do not guarantee wisdom. However, I would certainly rather trust the electorate than some idiot with a gun who thinks he should be making the decisions on how we should all live.



    Ironic that someone who supports this current fiasco would put these words in a sentence.

  6. #16
    Senior Member duckheads's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    NW Indiana
    Posts
    661

    Default

    How about at the hands of all the idiots they bus to the voting booths?
    CPR HRCH Scott's Sweet Brandy
    Kankakee River HRC
    NRA Life Member
    Pheasants Forever
    Delta Waterfowl

  7. #17
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier View Post
    [/b]


    Ironic that someone who supports this current fiasco would put these words in a sentence.
    What we have with this program is a rare situation. A President and Congressional majority were elected and did, with respect to health care, exactly whast they said they would do as the most important part of their proposed political agenda. How dare they!

    Quote Originally Posted by duckheads View Post
    How about at the hands of all the idiots they bus to the voting booths?
    You mean the registered voters who actually went to the polls instead of staying home to cry about the world? This President and the Congressional majority won by one of the largest majorities in American political history. It is possible that they may leave office by a similar margin in four three years. However, between now and then I hope they are as direct in governing as Bush and Reagan were with more tenuous electoral mandates in their first terms (a thin majority in one case, and a minority of votes in the other). I've sent money to the Democratic party every month since 2005. I see no reason to stop now. Hopefully most of you are doing the same with the party of your choice. I would rather see both parties feeling obligated to regular citizens rather than to pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, investment bankers, or attorneys.

  8. #18
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    What we have with this program is a rare situation. A President and Congressional majority were elected and did, with respect to health care, exactly whast they said they would do as the most important part of their proposed political agenda. How dare they!


    You mean the registered voters who actually went to the polls instead of staying home to cry about the world? This President and the Congressional majority won by one of the largest majorities in American political history. It is possible that they may leave office by a similar margin in four three years. However, between now and then I hope they are as direct in governing as Bush and Reagan were with more tenuous electoral mandates in their first terms (a thin majority in one case, and a minority of votes in the other). I've sent money to the Democratic party every month since 2005. I see no reason to stop now. Hopefully most of you are doing the same with the party of your choice. I would rather see both parties feeling obligated to regular citizens rather than to pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, investment bankers, or attorneys.
    It makes me sick to my stomach to have to say this, on this Mr. Yardley is correct.
    You want to blame somebody for this, blame ourselves collectively.

    Though NO ONE will admit it, if the truth be told many that are so desperately against Obama now did nothing in the last campaign and in November.
    Plouffe did everything, and I mean everything he needed to to win.



    Now, I learned a long time ago to be very careful for what I wished for, because I just might get it.


    You secular progressives have got what you wanted, "Nationalized Healthcare" now.......show me I was wrong on this.





    rk
    Stan b & Elvis

  9. #19
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    , "Nationalized Healthcare" now.......show me I was wrong on this.


    rk
    This is a definition of nationalization:

    Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state.[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated by or owned by the state. The opposite of nationalization is usually privatization or de-nationalisation, but may also be municipalization.
    Where specifically is anything of this nature contained in the bill?
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  10. #20
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Rockwall, TX
    Posts
    5,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    This is a definition of nationalization:



    Where specifically is anything of this nature contained in the bill?
    When all the insurance carriers withdraw from writing health insurance since it will be impossible to make a profit under the health careless requirements, we will be left with the single payer system which is what the Libs wanted all along. Sometimes you have to read between the lines.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •