signalmankenneth
Verified User
No More Tax Cuts For The Rich!
Winners and Losers from a Fiscal-Cliff Deal
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Just like health care reform, if the republicans had worked with the president instead of against him we could have achieved a more viable bill.
So will everyone who has a job.
That really scares me....with Obama running for POTUS and Joe Biden running for VP, you're saying people supported the ticket because of Biden ?.....that accounts for
Democrats having the stupidest constituents in the world....
Spending has been a problem for 50 or more years, Elvis.....its the accumulation of debt over that 50+ years that is the problem, not the Bush tax cuts or the Iraq War....
You're so unbelievably gullible ......
If the Queen had balls she'd be King, too.....idiot......the Democrats NEVER, EVER even attempted to get input from the Republicans on anything concerning healthcare....
They told us that often and were quite proud of the fact that the entire plan was all theirs....they didn't want the Republicans to participate in any way......and
didn't allow their participation....the Republicans were shut out completely.....
Its no wonder you're stupid, you don't even know recent history that you've lived through, let alone historical facts from before your were born....
By then, they may be too weak from hunger to do that.
apple0154
MEOW
Obviously you don't know recent history. Obama had a majority and could have pushed ObamaCare through as soon as he took office but being the nice guy he is he encouraged the Repubs to participate and the Repubs deliberately stalled by putting forward the same old, tired, worn out ideas. They conducted themselves like unruly school children until Obama had no other choice than to figuratively kick them out of class to stand in the hall. They refused to participate in a civilized manner knowing 45,000 people were needlessly dying due to a lack of medical insurance. Perhaps it's time to consider just what kind of human beings they are.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
read my signature.
So now putting forward your own ideas is not participating in your view ?....sorry fool.....suggesting your own ideas IS participating.....
disregarding those ideas without consideration IS shutting the others out completely because you don't need them to get your own way.....thats the history
007
New member
77%+ of American households have just been given a tax hike.
So much for tax the rich!!
I'm not the kind of person who says "I told you so" but I told you so!
If you are one of the "rich " earning $50000 a year you are losing a hundred bucks a month!!
50 grand a year is now "rich"!!
It's laughable!!!
So much for tax the rich!!
I'm not the kind of person who says "I told you so" but I told you so!
If you are one of the "rich " earning $50000 a year you are losing a hundred bucks a month!!
50 grand a year is now "rich"!!
It's laughable!!!
Disillusioned
New member
And here's the irony, they may have increased the income, but then in the same act they turned around and spent half the money they made, if not more. The government needs somebody(I'm holding hope for the Supreme Court) to bring down the gavel and tell them, "Thou shalt not spend more money than thou makest" It's really simple.
wanderingbear
Radical liberal
Poor Teabaggers still think that the 1%'s are going to choose them to bring them up out of poverty.They dont understand that all the 1%'s want is to use them as slaves.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
First part is incorrect. Second part is dead on balls accurate and they are doing it to you with liberalism. You let them and you love being their slave.
apple0154
MEOW
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?''
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/#f2
"But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?''
If the more liberal interpretation of "to provide for the common defense" is to be adopted ought not the more liberal interpretation of "promote the general welfare" to be adopted? Ought not the more liberal interpretation of "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" to be adopted?
"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
"reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve"
If the Founding Fathers' intention was to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" how can anyone twist that to mean the government has no compelling interest to ensure every parent has unrestricted access to whatever medical care may be available to ensure they can work and provide for themselves and their family? How can one properly interpret a document without considering the intention for which the document was drafted? That's like interpreting something taken out of context.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Was the US Constitution set up to limit the powers of the federal government or expand them to all aspects of life?
apple0154
MEOW
They did not participate. The discussion/goal/objective was to ensure as many as possible were insured and that's only possible if/when the government is involved and the Repubs did not want the government involved. It's like a family discussing/planning where to go on vacation and one member not wanting to go on vacation. That member's input has no value to the discussion.
Obama did consider Repub ideas and told them more than once not to come to the table with old, tired, worn out ideas. Keep repeating the same old ideas is not participating. It is stalling. It is being disruptive and like naughty children they were appropriately dealt with. And that same obstinate, unruly attitude was evident right up to New Year's day regarding the fiscal cliff negotiations resulting in them being considered having folded rather than having come away with a modicum of respect. They've lost the respect of the Democrats, the respect of the people and even the respect of their own party members.
And you contine to support such a party.....you were saying something about being a fool?
Yes...idiot...and it is still just as illegal for a rich man to steal a loaf of bread as a poor man.
apple0154
MEOW
It was set up to do what the Preamble says. For something like medical care, preventing the unnecessary deaths of citizens, what could be a more important function of government knowing the Founders specifically mentioned the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty?
I know you don't care, but it needs to be said nonetheless.
STY believes that Congress makes the laws, not wall street. The fact that Congress is bought and paid for by wall street is immaterial to him.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
That is not what they meant and you know it. If it were, why didn't they set up universal healthcare from the get go? Why didn't they set up a Dept of Health? You are twisting the words and yourself in knots trying to comport them to your worldview. You do not have a right to medical care.
But, forget the philosophical for a second. Why in the world would you turn your medical care decisions over to the government? That makes absolutely no sense.
It boggles the mind when you hear people complain about all the things government does and then the same people turn around and ask the government to do more.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Once again democrats got their asses stomped into the ground .. which to them smells like victory.
NEWSFLASH: Spending and entitlement cuts are next .. and you just gave away all your bargaining chips for little of nothing.
The midterms are going to be brutal for democrats .. AGAIN.
NEWSFLASH: Spending and entitlement cuts are next .. and you just gave away all your bargaining chips for little of nothing.
The midterms are going to be brutal for democrats .. AGAIN.