The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: U B doin' jus dandy Justice Roberts!

  1. #31
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sambo View Post
    So I guess now you know that Obama did not violate the constitutional as so many of you have accused. Thank God our justices uphold the law and are not partisan as you all hoped. Now the spin is doom and gloom going forward and your only hope is electing lying republicans, because I'm still seeking good employees for both my businesses.

    Uncle Bill your post shows just how much of a biget and raciest you are. You are not about what is best for americans...you are all about creed and color.

    Lets talk hispanics for a minute...you walk into any oil field fab shop in houston and 90% of the employees are hispanic and everyone of them can't hire enough workers. The reason this is...because they are skilled and will work. I think our government should be concern with those folks that are willing to work.

    and just yesterday you spoke on another thread about attacking one's character....guess it's only ok if you do it...

    I was right you can only dish it out, but you can't take it.....crow all you want about the SCOTUS decision....

    LETS SEE WHEN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SPEAKS ON NOV 6TH
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  2. #32
    Senior Member gmhr1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    3,737

    Default

    Update two million dollars raised by Romney in less than a day. I think the American people are speaking.
    GMHR Riparian Bearly Behavin MH QAA (FC AFC Rebel with A Cause X AFC Bams Liberty Belle MH )
    GMHR Gadwalls Nightmare (MHR Tanglewood Iron Dago x Wind River Poppin Pepper)
    MHR Highlands Bearcat (FC AFC Suncrest Bear X GMHR Gadwalls Nightmare)
    Croppers Gold Dust (NAFC FC M D's Cotton Pick' N Cropper X Hunka Papas Chardonnay JH )

  3. #33
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,261

    Default

    In case one is interested ... some people have actually read this humongous law now ... and here are some highlights.
    It's actually enlightening to see some of the provisions of the law that many of us probably don't know about.

    The strike-outs are the items that have changed as a result of the SCOTUS decision.

    46 50 Reasons to Repeal ALL of Obamacare NOW

    Today the Supreme Court struck down portions of Obamacare as unconstitutional – states cannot be “dragooned” into expanding their Medicaid programs according to the law’s dictates. However, a list of 50 particularly onerous or egregious provisions in Obamacare (with sections from the statute duly noted) reveals just how much of this bad law remains. By the most generous interpretation, the Court struck down only four of the 50 egregious policies, illustrating why Congress should immediately repeal the entire measure once and for all. Among many other bad policies, the law:

    1. Imposes $800 billion in tax increases, including no fewer than 12 separate provisions breaking candidate Obama’s “firm pledge” during his campaign that he would not raise “any of your taxes” (Sections 9001-9016)
    2. Forces Americans to purchase a product for the first time ever (Section 1501)
    3. Creates a board of 15 unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to make binding rulings on how to reduce Medicare spending (Section 3403)
    4. Pays over $800 billion in subsidies straight to health insurance companies (Sections 1401, 1402, and 1412)
    5. Requires all individuals to buy government-approved health insurance plans, imposing new mandates that will raise individual insurance premiums by an average of $2,100 per family (Section 1302)
    6. Forces seniors to lose their current health care, by enacting Medicare Advantage cuts that by 2017 will cut enrollment in half, and cut plan choices by two-thirds (Section 3201)
    7. Imposes a 40 percent tax on health benefits, a direct contradiction of Barack Obama’s campaign promises (Section 9001)
    8. Relies upon government bureaucrats to “issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing” (Section 1311(e)(3)(B))
    9. Provides special benefits to residents of Libby, Montana – home of Max Baucus, the powerful Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who helped write the law even though he says he hasn’t read it (Section 10323)
    10. Imposes what a Democrat Governor called the “mother of all unfunded mandates” – new, Washington-dictated requirements of at least $118 billion – at a time when states already face budget deficits totaling a collective $175 billion (Section 2001)
    11. Imposes reductions in Medicare spending that, according to the program’s non-partisan actuary, would cause 40 percent of all Medicare providers to become unprofitable, and could lead to their exit from the program (Section 3401)
    12. Raises premiums on more than 17 million seniors participating in Medicare Part D, so that Big Pharma can benefit from its “rock-solid deal” struck behind closed doors with President Obama and Congressional Democrats (Section 3301)
    13. Creates an institute to undertake research that, according to one draft Committee report prepared by Democrats, could mean that “more expensive [treatments] will no longer be prescribed” (Section 6301)
    14. Creates a multi-billion dollar “slush fund” doled out solely by federal bureaucrats, which has already been used to fund things like bike paths (Section 4002)
    15. Subjects states to myriad new lawsuits, by forcing them to assume legal liability for delivering services to Medicaid patients for the first time in that program’s history (Section 2304)
    16. Permits taxpayer dollars to flow to health plans that fund abortion, in a sharp deviation from prior practice under Democrat and Republican Administrations (Section 1303)
    17. Empowers bureaucrats on a board that has ruled against mammograms and against prostate cancer screenings to make binding determinations about what types of preventive services should be covered (Sections 2713 and 4104)
    18. Precludes poor individuals from having a choice of health care plans by automatically dumping them in the Medicaid program (Section 1413(a))
    19. Creates a new entitlement program that one Democrat called “a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of” – a scheme so unsustainable even the Administration was forced to admit it would not work (Section 8002)
    20. Provides $5 billion in taxpayer dollars to a fund that has largely served to bail out unions and other organizations who made unsustainable health care promises to retirees that they cannot afford (Section 1102)21. Creates a tax credit so convoluted it requires seven different worksheets to determine eligibility (Section 1421)22. Imposes multiple penalties on those who marry, by reducing subsidies (and increasing taxes) for married couples when compared to two individuals cohabiting together (Sections 1401-02)23. Extends the Medicare “payroll tax” to unearned income for the first time ever, including new taxes on the sale of some homes (Section 1402)24. Impedes state flexibility by requiring Medicaid programs to offer a specific package of benefits, including benefits like family planning services (Sections 2001(a)(2), 2001(c), 1302(b), and 2303(c))
    25. Requires individuals to go to the doctor and get a prescription in order to spend their own Flexible Spending Account money on over-the-counter medicines (Section 9003)26. Expands the definition of “low-income” to make 63 percent of non-elderly Americans eligible for “low-income” subsidized insurance (Section 1401)
    27. Imposes a new tax on the makers of goods like pacemakers and hearing aids (Section 9009)
    28. Creates an insurance reimbursement scheme that could result in the federal government obtaining Americans’ medical records (Section 1343)
    29. Permits states to make individuals presumptively eligible for Medicaid for unlimited 60-day periods, thus allowing any individual to receive taxpayer-funded assistance ad infinitum (Section 2303(b))
    30. Allows individuals to purchase insurance on government exchanges – and to receive taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies – WITHOUT verifying their identity as American citizens (Section 1411)
    31. Gives $300 million in higher Medicaid reimbursements to one state as part of the infamous “Louisiana Purchase” – described by ABC News as “what…it take[s] to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform” (Section 2006)
    32. Raises taxes on firms who cannot afford to buy coverage for their workers (Section 1513)
    33. Forces younger Americans to pay double-digit premium increases so that older workers can pay slightly less (Section 1201)
    34. Prohibits states from modifying their Medicaid programs to include things like modest anti-fraud protections (Section 2001)
    35. Includes a special provision increasing federal payments just for Tennessee (Section 1203(b))
    36. Allows individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines – but only if politicians and bureaucrats agree to allow citizens this privilege (Section 1333)
    37. Allows the HHS Secretary and federal bureaucrats to grant waivers exempting people from Obamacare’s onerous mandates, over half of which have gone to members of union plans (Section 1001)
    38. Creates a pseudo-government-run plan overseen by the federal government (Section 1334)
    39. Removes a demonstration project designed to force government-run Medicare to compete on a level playing field with private plans (Section 1102(f))
    40. Gives the Secretary of HHS an UNLIMITED amount of federal funds to spend funding state insurance Exchanges (Section 1311(a))
    41. Creates a grant program that could be used by liberal groups like ACORN or AARP to conduct “public education activities” surrounding Obamacare (Section 1311(i))
    42. Applies new federal mandates to pre-Obamacare insurance policies, thus proving that you CAN’T keep the insurance plan you had – and liked – before the law passed (Sections 2301 and 10103)
    43. Prohibits individuals harmed by federal bureaucrats from challenging those decisions, either in court or through regulatory processes (Sections 3001, 3003, 3007, 3008, 3021, 3022, 3025, 3133, 3403, 5501, 6001, and 6401)
    44. Earmarks $100 million for “construction of a health care facility,” a “sweetheart deal” inserted by a Democrat Senator trying to win re-election (Section 10502)
    45. Puts yet another Medicaid unfunded mandate on states, by raising payments to primary care physicians, but only for two years, forcing states to come up with another method of funding this unsustainable promise when federal funding expires (Section 1202)
    46. Imposes price controls that have had the effect of costing jobs in the short time since they were first implemented (Section 1001)
    47. Prohibits individuals from spending federal insurance subsidies outside government-approved Exchanges (Section 1401(a))
    48. Provides a special increase in federal hospital payments just for Hawaii (Section 10201(e)(1))
    49. Imposes new reporting requirements that will cost businesses millions of dollars, and affect thousands of restaurants and other establishments across the country (Section 4205)
    50. Codifies 159 new boards, bureaucracies, and programs

    The Supreme Court may have struck some of these onerous provisions, but the only way to ensure that ALL these provisions are eliminated – and never return – is to repeal ALL of this unconstitutional law immediately.

    Chris Jacobs
    Senior Policy Analyst
    Joint Economic Committee
    Senate Republican Staff
    (202) 224-5171
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Oakdale,ct.
    Posts
    2,877

    Default

    I'm sure uncle Bill wasn't making a derogatory post about blacks. Right, Bill? Why how could you think such a thing Sambo?-Paul
    Last edited by paul young; 06-28-2012 at 09:07 PM.
    there's no good reason to fatten up a retriever.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,493

    Default

    Like many conservatives, I was stunned by the Court decision. After hearing many explanations of the decision, it seems to me that Justice Roberts does make more sense than one would think. Justice Roberts says it is a TAX and through our representatives, there is NO RESTRICTION on either the type or amount of tax that our representatives can levy. He along with the 4 so called liberal Justices also wrote a scathing rebuke of the government's position that it had the right to take such action under the Commerce Clause. They said that the gov. had no right to control from craddle to grave all conduct of the individual. Ironically, liberals argued the right under the Commerce Clause and conservatives argued it did not. Evidently the court concured concerning this issue. What should be vividly obvious to all now is that the government we elect has unlimited power of taxation and who we elect will now also be aware of that power.

    Liberals such as Sambo, Buzz, Yardley, et al have argued for what they call is a single payor system, with the gov. being the single payor. They like to call it a single payor system but I call it a single employer system. When you tell me that doctors can only work for the government. That you cannot hire me and cannot pay me or another doctor for the services you desire and services that I can render, then the gov. has designated me a slave and can tell me only can I charge the gov. for my services, where I can live and who I can treat. I am not a lawyer but it appears to me that the gov. based on this ruling CANNOT implement a single employer system. They cannot tell me who can hire me or who can fire me. They cannot, being the single employer tell me who I can treat nor where I can live. I may be wrong but this is what I understand to be true.

    As I understand it, the gov. cannot tell me that I have to work for it. It cannot tell me that I may not be able to work for anyone else. They cannot tell me I have to live where they tell me to live. I can live and work where I choose. I can work for who I choose so long as they choose to hire me. I can even tell the gov. to stick it where the sun don't shine if the try to require me to work for it. I can even tell those of liberal ilk that I will not work for them and take their business somewhere else.

    To sumarize, it appears to me that the SCOUS has told the Amrican people that the gov. that they elect has the power to tax anything and everything they see fit so the american people had better be careful who they elect, but the gov. does not have the authority via the Commerce Clause to control the lives of individuals from craddle to grave. To my mind, maybe this is a good thing. The American people will now know what is at stake when they elect their representatives. Maybe the doctors will realize the impact they can have when it comes to Obamcare and the threat to their individual freedoms and the individual freedoms of their patients to hire them. It appears to me that together they can reign in the liberals and their attack on individual freedoms.

    I write this as a question. Conservatives, tell me what I can do. Tell me what we can do together to stop this socialist, liberal, progressive, Democrat attempt to restrict our freedoms. I am certainly willing. Liberals, progressives, socialists, progressives, tell me where I am wrong. I am listening.

  6. #36
    Senior Member gmhr1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    3,737

    Default

    We are retired military and have Triwest I wonder what changes we can expect?
    Last edited by gmhr1; 06-28-2012 at 09:26 PM.
    GMHR Riparian Bearly Behavin MH QAA (FC AFC Rebel with A Cause X AFC Bams Liberty Belle MH )
    GMHR Gadwalls Nightmare (MHR Tanglewood Iron Dago x Wind River Poppin Pepper)
    MHR Highlands Bearcat (FC AFC Suncrest Bear X GMHR Gadwalls Nightmare)
    Croppers Gold Dust (NAFC FC M D's Cotton Pick' N Cropper X Hunka Papas Chardonnay JH )

  7. #37
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sambo View Post
    No Franco...you have this one wrong. Those new green card holders work and their employers have to pay 60% of their healthcare. If someone ops not to have healthcare...there is a tax of 1% of their income put on them and if they make a lot of money it is higher percentage. If the employer does not do his part, he is taxed.

    If I make $50K/year, and have to pay 1% tax (young, single, healthy) ... that's $500. No brainer. The young, single, healthy making $50K, will likely not have insurance, unless it's provided 100% by his employer. Net result: same as now. No change. Except $500 goes into the govt kitty to subsidize those who are eligible for subsidy.

    Those who are eligible for subsidy will pay varying amounts based on household income. As I recall, subsidies were to extend up to around $80K/year depending on family size.


    The point of the program is to make sure people are insured so the others don't bear their cost. Their is nothing free in this program unless you don't work and those have always been covered by medicaid

    The Court also said that the states would not be able to lose their Medicaid funds if they failed to expand Medicaid as proposed by the Fed law. So ... how do we come up with affordable health insurance for those people who still can't afford it and who are not going to become eligible for expanded Medicaid if their state chooses not to expand its Medicaid? They will remain uninsured?

    Oh, yes, they will have the state insurance pools ... but what if they still can't afford the premiums even in those pools? Insurance pools for risky drivers are available, but they aren't cheap. I would have to guess that the state insurance pools will also not be a whole lot cheaper than other health insurance plans available. But it should make some jobs for state employee unions. And only those who are already sick will have a sense of urgency for using the pools, since the young, healthy people will still find it cheaper to pay the tax.

    And since, in theory anyway, an illegal resident will not be able to be subsidized, will those uninsured still provide a burden on hospital emergency rooms? Will those doctors and hospitals still be stuck with the cost of treating those patients?

    I wonder ... will the govt now feel a need to make life insurance and disability insurance mandatory? Mandatory disability insurance would be good. It would take the burden off SS disability, wouldn't it? Life insurance for the breadwinner(s) would be good, too. That would help relieve the burden of social welfare programs in the event of the death of the breadwinner has large impact on the family unit's income.

    If the govt can dictate that the insurance companies have to provide contraception coverage at no charge, what other services can they require the insurors to provide at no charge? Seems like the insurance companies either have to raise overall premiums to cover the "free" stuff, or they just change their product mix to something that is more profitable. Maybe some of them simply get out of the health insurance business?

    If this works so well in health insurance, how about banking? Maybe the govt can add an extra tax to banks that charge a higher interest rate for home loans than the govt thinks is appropriate? Maybe the govt decides that bank execs' bonuses are too high, and decide that the banks must give refunds to the people who have home mortgages with that bank?

    With SS fund failing, maybe govt decides that everyone needs to have a retirement plan, and if you don't, you will be taxed.

    Also occurs to me, WRT requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions. With Medicare Part D, you MUST sign up the first year you are eligible, within the prescribed period for signing up, or you are precluded from signing up for the rest of that year. Each year you defer purchasing Plan D coverage (after your year of eligibility), you pay an additional premium "penalty". Since this law is a work in progress, will they do that with Obamacare as well? If so, that could mean that for each year (starting in 2014) that you do not purchase your health insurance, you will pay a higher premium for signing up later.

    So, if you are young and healthy and defer for 5 years, 10 years ... when you do get sick and want health insurance your premium will be higher than if you had signed up when you first became eligible. Obviously, the govt already figured out with Medicare that people will defer signing up for Plan D (for medications coverage) until they need to use medications.

    As I've said before, and Franco concurs, there is no way to give medical care or medical insurance to 30 million more people and NOT have SOMEbody pay for it. If 1 million of those people need an MRI or CAT scan in a year, SOMEbody is going to pay for it.

    I liked Rubio's comment that bad ideas can be legal, but that doesn't change the fact that they are bad ideas.

    The SCOTUS has really put the ball back in the legislators' court ... and they have defined that the individual mandate IS a tax.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,261

    Default

    From Newsday:
    The upshot is that Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to force you to eat broccoli, but it can tax you into doing so. Huzzah for liberty! To reach this decision, Roberts had to embrace a position denied by the White House, Congress and vast swaths of the legal punditocracy: that the mandate is a tax for the purposes of constitutional consideration but not a tax according to the Anti-Injunction Act (which bars lawsuits against taxes until after they're levied
    I surely missed this nuance ... that it IS a tax, but ALSO is NOT a tax.

    If that is the correct interpretation of Roberts' opinion, then there is absolutely nothing the govt cannot do to control citizens: they can tax you FOR doing something; or they can tax you for NOT doing something.

    Think of it this way: they can tax you for using contraception; or they can tax you for not doing so ... depending on how they would like to control population growth, they can adjust the amount of the respective taxes accordingly.

    Since this law is so convoluted, it also occurs to me: if you can't qualify for a "subsidy" for your health insurance (that you are required to have); and if the cost of the health insurance is still too expensive, you will be taxed for not buying the health insurance. While this tax is to be collected by the IRS, it is NOT an earned income tax.

    So ... does this mean that even for those people who pay zero in income tax, they will be required to pay this tax anyhow? For example, even people who pay zero in income tax, and receive a paycheck from an employer, are still required to pay into SS and Medicare.

    Will seniors on Medicare be required to have supplemental insurance to their Medicare? As we know, there are many expenses that are not covered by Medicare Part A and B; many seniors also pay for additional supplemental coverage. If Medicare payments are modified to pay less of the total bill, will the cost of the supplemental coverage increase? Will that then put seniors in a position of being unable to get the supplemental coverage? Will the 10 or 15 million uninsured now simply trade places with seniors who will end up under-insured? Will seniors who don't buy supplemental coverage be subject to the lack of insurance tax?

    While proposals for re-structuring Medicare typically begin for people presently under 55, how does O-care provide for those presently dependent on Medicare if there is no "transition" period?

    Does all this really end up leading to a single-payer system after all?

    While we may be quick to say that Medicare was a bad idea to begin with, nonetheless, it is now a factor in the health care system. And ... the numbers impacted by Medicare will grow dramatically as the "boomer" generation enters that system.

    I believe that saying "the poor will always be with us" also includes, "the OLD and the poor will always be with us."

    It always comes back to the basic premise of: there is no free lunch. If someone gets something they didn't have before; someone else is NOT going to have something they DID have before. Just depends on who is doing the choosing of who gets what.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    You have written some very astute posts, Gerry. As to this query...

    "I write this as a question. Conservatives, tell me what I can do. Tell me what we can do together to stop this socialist, liberal, progressive, Democrat attempt to restrict our freedoms. I am certainly willing. Liberals, progressives, socialists, progressives, tell me where I am wrong. I am listening."

    ...certainly you know the answer...the ONLY answer...we MUST get rid of this sham of a regime. It's totally about "CHANGE"! The type of change we AMERICANS provided in 2010. Only now we MUST finish the job in the Senate AND the White House!

    FWIW, I'll post another view on the Robert's decision for your edification. If we wish to be somewhat benevolent towards his thinking, I believe the writer has come up with a legitimate reason for Robert's action.

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Here's a view of the Robert's decision that I'd like to believe. Most of us conservatives have been in a state of shock ever since he handed down the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare. We just couldn't fathom how he could have changed 'stripes' so quickly. This MAY be the answer, OR it's one dudes spin to allow us conservatives to still have faith in how Roberts will view future decisions.

    If indeed this is what Robert's intended, then it is quite brilliant.

    As to the MSP exhilaration, saying Roberts sided with the other four lefties, he didn't. This was not a 5-4 decision...it was a 4-4-1. The left had no say in this. If it did, we wouldn't be calling it a "TAX". This was the Chief Justice re-writing the act and making it known to all that it was never about the commerce clause, it was always a TAX, regardless of how vociferous Obama and his toadies in the Democrat party wanted it to NOT BE A TAX.

    UB
    Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare

    Bert Atkinson Jr.



    Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

    It will be a short-lived celebration.

    Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.


    Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever.

    The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.


    Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical.

    Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.


    Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?


    Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.


    Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.


    And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.


    Brilliant.


    SHARE this interesting piece with your friends by clicking the buttons below!

    This article, written by I.M. Citizen, gives a much different perspective of Justice Robert’s decision. Comment below and let us know what you think. Also check out I.M. Citizen’s blog - quite interesting.


    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

Posting Permissions

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