Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And over seven months after House Speaker Ryan promised to reveal the GOP's super-special replacement, Congressional Republicans are still whining and doing nothing.
ObamaCare propels number of insured Americans above 90%
For the first time ever, fewer than 10% of Americans lack health insurance, according to data released Tuesday by the CDC. And CNBC calls that "a clear sign of ObamaCare's impact." In 2015, only 9.1% of Americans—about 28.6 million people—were uninsured. That's down from 14.2% in 2013 when ObamaCare really started to go into effect, the Hill reports. That drop amounts to another 16.2 million Americans who now have health insurance. "Today's report is further proof that our country has made undeniable and historic strides thanks to the Affordable Care Act." Sylvia Burwell, secretary of health and human services, tells CNBC. "Our country ought to be proud of how far we've come and where we're going."
But regardless of ObamaCare's success in reducing the ranks of the uninsured—the Obama administration estimates more than 20 million Americans have gained insurance since the ACA passed in 2010—the Hill reports that Republicans still plan to use it as a wedge issue in November. Donald Trump and Senate Republicans believe hitting Hillary Clinton over ObamaCare will propel them to victories. “This healthcare law has been devastating to the Democratic Party," John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, tells the Hill.
The report from the CDC is attached for anyone who's interested:
How many that have it now do so because someone else was forced to pay the taxes that help fund it for those freeloaders?
How many of us taxpayers paid for scofflaws who frequented ER's for decades before the PPACA went into effect? Your problem is ignorance + simplified thinking, if it is thinking. Many who needed immediate treatment let the condition fester causing the taxpayer even more money, are now able to get treatments early saving lives and dollars.
It shouldn't have cost the taxpayer anything previously. One person does not owe another person a damn thing. If you think someone is owed something, give them YOUR money. MINE is for MY family.
And over seven months after House Speaker Ryan promised to reveal the GOP's super-special replacement, Congressional Republicans are still whining and doing nothing.
ObamaCare propels number of insured Americans above 90%
For the first time ever, fewer than 10% of Americans lack health insurance, according to data released Tuesday by the CDC. And CNBC calls that "a clear sign of ObamaCare's impact." In 2015, only 9.1% of Americans—about 28.6 million people—were uninsured. That's down from 14.2% in 2013 when ObamaCare really started to go into effect, the Hill reports. That drop amounts to another 16.2 million Americans who now have health insurance. "Today's report is further proof that our country has made undeniable and historic strides thanks to the Affordable Care Act." Sylvia Burwell, secretary of health and human services, tells CNBC. "Our country ought to be proud of how far we've come and where we're going."
But regardless of ObamaCare's success in reducing the ranks of the uninsured—the Obama administration estimates more than 20 million Americans have gained insurance since the ACA passed in 2010—the Hill reports that Republicans still plan to use it as a wedge issue in November. Donald Trump and Senate Republicans believe hitting Hillary Clinton over ObamaCare will propel them to victories. “This healthcare law has been devastating to the Democratic Party," John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, tells the Hill.
The report from the CDC is attached for anyone who's interested:
How many that have it now do so because someone else was forced to pay the taxes that help fund it for those freeloaders?
How many of us taxpayers paid for scofflaws who frequented ER's for decades before the PPACA went into effect? Your problem is ignorance + simplified thinking, if it is thinking. Many who needed immediate treatment let the condition fester causing the taxpayer even more money, are now able to get treatments early saving lives and dollars.
It shouldn't have cost the taxpayer anything previously. One person does not owe another person a damn thing. If you think someone is owed something, give them YOUR money. MINE is for MY family.
That is compounded even further by the fact that Obamacare made inexpensive insurance illegal.
Not only are they taxing you and forcing you help others...they are also making it easier for the insurance industry to get rich off of us.
Talk about about a big WIN/LOSE.
How many of us taxpayers paid for scofflaws who frequented ER's for decades before the PPACA went into effect? Your problem is ignorance + simplified thinking, if it is thinking. Many who needed immediate treatment let the condition fester causing the taxpayer even more money, are now able to get treatments early saving lives and dollars.
The only problem with that argument is that we are not saving any dollars.
We are saving lives. Which do you value more?
Who is we, and how are you going to prove that (believe me I hope it is true).
But the horsecrap of 47,000 a year dying because of a lack of insurance really created a bad taste for statistics in this argument. Nobody could produce the corpses even though by now they should have over 600,000 of them.
I have no idea how many lives have been saved. What I do know is less medical care is being provided in ER's and more maladies are being treated early, which one may infer prevents some early deaths, and the greater cost to all of us when a disease is allowed to progress and insurance and the patient must pay more - those costs are paid by the taxpayer, and their tax dollars are then not used to fix roads, issue permits timely and provide necessary police and fire protections, etc.
The cost to local government is reduced when a patient is able to see a doctor outside of the public hospital whose operation is subsidized the the taxpayer.
The worst part about is what you said is "subsidized by the taxpayer". No one owes another person healthcare coverage.
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
You have to ask?
The only problem with that argument is that we are not saving any dollars.
We are saving lives. Which do you value more?
Who is we, and how are you going to prove that (believe me I hope it is true).
But the horsecrap of 47,000 a year dying because of a lack of insurance really created a bad taste for statistics in this argument. Nobody could produce the corpses even though by now they should have over 600,000 of them.
I have no idea how many lives have been saved. What I do know is less medical care is being provided in ER's and more maladies are being treated early, which one may infer prevents some early deaths, and the greater cost to all of us when a disease is allowed to progress and insurance and the patient must pay more - those costs are paid by the taxpayer, and their tax dollars are then not used to fix roads, issue permits timely and provide necessary police and fire protections, etc.
The cost to local government is reduced when a patient is able to see a doctor outside of the public hospital whose operation is subsidized the the taxpayer.
The worst part about is what you said is "subsidized by the taxpayer". No one owes another person healthcare coverage.
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
You have to ask?
Actually I do. My dad passed away in February at age 93. He had two knew replacements in his 70's and in the passed decade feel often. Once on a walk on a rather busy street he feel and couldn't get up, car after car passed by and not until an off duty police officer stopped did anyone offer to help him.
So yeah, I need to ask.
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
You have to ask?
Actually I do. My dad passed away in February at age 93. He had two knew replacements in his 70's and in the passed decade feel often. Once on a walk on a rather busy street he feel and couldn't get up, car after car passed by and not until an off duty police officer stopped did anyone offer to help him.
So yeah, I need to ask.
We are saving lives. Which do you value more?
Who is we, and how are you going to prove that (believe me I hope it is true).
But the horsecrap of 47,000 a year dying because of a lack of insurance really created a bad taste for statistics in this argument. Nobody could produce the corpses even though by now they should have over 600,000 of them.
I have no idea how many lives have been saved. What I do know is less medical care is being provided in ER's and more maladies are being treated early, which one may infer prevents some early deaths, and the greater cost to all of us when a disease is allowed to progress and insurance and the patient must pay more - those costs are paid by the taxpayer, and their tax dollars are then not used to fix roads, issue permits timely and provide necessary police and fire protections, etc.
The cost to local government is reduced when a patient is able to see a doctor outside of the public hospital whose operation is subsidized the the taxpayer.
The worst part about is what you said is "subsidized by the taxpayer". No one owes another person healthcare coverage.
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
There's the entire problem. You think it's your place to determine what duty I have to someone else. I get to pick those, you don't.
Depends on whether or not I, not you, determine whether that person is in discomfort and need. You don't get to make that determination for me just like I don't get to make it for you.
I have said for years that if I think someone is truly in need of help and I can help them, I will. If I don't, I won't. It's that simple.
If I don't think someone truly needs help, I'll walk right past them. If someone is in a position not of their own doing or truly can't help themselves, and that's based on MY determination, I'll help. If that person caused their own problems by making bad choices and/or only wants something handed to them, and that's also based on MY determination, I'll let them go without. I didn't create their situation, therefore, it's not my place to offset the results.
PS he fell, and he did feel deserted and alone
People with seizures often have the same experience. Haters like Conservative65 would just step right over them. "Not my problem." But if something happened to them or someone close to them, they'd be the first ones screaming "Somebody help MEEEEEEE!!!!"
Who is we, and how are you going to prove that (believe me I hope it is true).
But the horsecrap of 47,000 a year dying because of a lack of insurance really created a bad taste for statistics in this argument. Nobody could produce the corpses even though by now they should have over 600,000 of them.
I have no idea how many lives have been saved. What I do know is less medical care is being provided in ER's and more maladies are being treated early, which one may infer prevents some early deaths, and the greater cost to all of us when a disease is allowed to progress and insurance and the patient must pay more - those costs are paid by the taxpayer, and their tax dollars are then not used to fix roads, issue permits timely and provide necessary police and fire protections, etc.
The cost to local government is reduced when a patient is able to see a doctor outside of the public hospital whose operation is subsidized the the taxpayer.
The worst part about is what you said is "subsidized by the taxpayer". No one owes another person healthcare coverage.
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
There's the entire problem. You think it's your place to determine what duty I have to someone else. I get to pick those, you don't.
Depends on whether or not I, not you, determine whether that person is in discomfort and need. You don't get to make that determination for me just like I don't get to make it for you.
I have said for years that if I think someone is truly in need of help and I can help them, I will. If I don't, I won't. It's that simple.
If I don't think someone truly needs help, I'll walk right past them. If someone is in a position not of their own doing or truly can't help themselves, and that's based on MY determination, I'll help. If that person caused their own problems by making bad choices and/or only wants something handed to them, and that's also based on MY determination, I'll let them go without. I didn't create their situation, therefore, it's not my place to offset the results.
You expect other peoples kids to go overseas and kill terrorists, or not? If, or not, why are you not going into Syria and hunting down ISIS:? Don't tell us that is apples and oranges, some people can help others and object to paying taxes, others pay taxes and vote to make taxes pay for the good of us all.
My wife and I are looking for a new home, a new expensive home for this reason. We own our home free and clear and thus don't have enough tax right offs, and give too much of our money to a Congress which claims to be fiscally conservative, but have yet to cut their salary and benefits, and are ever willing to cut benefits and aid to others.
So, by buying an expensive home we will pay about the same in local taxes, but we will pay more to taxes spend locally and less to the DOD which (for example) drops $40,000 humvees out of the sky, one after another, & each is totally destroyed, or to members of Congress who spent millions on political witch hunts and nothing to fix the needs of the American citizen.
I have no idea how many lives have been saved. What I do know is less medical care is being provided in ER's and more maladies are being treated early, which one may infer prevents some early deaths, and the greater cost to all of us when a disease is allowed to progress and insurance and the patient must pay more - those costs are paid by the taxpayer, and their tax dollars are then not used to fix roads, issue permits timely and provide necessary police and fire protections, etc.
The cost to local government is reduced when a patient is able to see a doctor outside of the public hospital whose operation is subsidized the the taxpayer.
The worst part about is what you said is "subsidized by the taxpayer". No one owes another person healthcare coverage.
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
There's the entire problem. You think it's your place to determine what duty I have to someone else. I get to pick those, you don't.
Depends on whether or not I, not you, determine whether that person is in discomfort and need. You don't get to make that determination for me just like I don't get to make it for you.
I have said for years that if I think someone is truly in need of help and I can help them, I will. If I don't, I won't. It's that simple.
If I don't think someone truly needs help, I'll walk right past them. If someone is in a position not of their own doing or truly can't help themselves, and that's based on MY determination, I'll help. If that person caused their own problems by making bad choices and/or only wants something handed to them, and that's also based on MY determination, I'll let them go without. I didn't create their situation, therefore, it's not my place to offset the results.
You expect other peoples kids to go overseas and kill terrorists, or not? If, or not, why are you not going into Syria and hunting down ISIS:? Don't tell us that is apples and oranges, some people can help others and object to paying taxes, others pay taxes and vote to make taxes pay for the good of us all.
My wife and I are looking for a new home, a new expensive home for this reason. We own our home free and clear and thus don't have enough tax right offs, and give too much of our money to a Congress which claims to be fiscally conservative, but have yet to cut their salary and benefits, and are ever willing to cut benefits and aid to others.
So, by buying an expensive home we will pay about the same in local taxes, but we will pay more to taxes spend locally and less to the DOD which (for example) drops $40,000 humvees out of the sky, one after another, & each is totally destroyed, or to members of Congress who spent millions on political witch hunts and nothing to fix the needs of the American citizen.
What you need to do with that money is provide for the needs of all the people you say you care about. If you don't, your words that you care are nothing more than bullshit from the typical Liberal. If you care and you think taxes should go to help, you shouldn't have a problem with paying more. Since you won't, you're a typical piece of shit liar.
There's a difference between military spending and the type spending you think Congress should do. One is directly listed in the Constitution and the nonsense social programs aren't. You can't fix the American citizen by handing him/her something for nothing. That you think so proves you're a moron. Get out of the way of those of us that know how to do things and STFU. We'll tell you when you can speak. Outside of that, keep your damn mouth shut.
The worst part about is what you said is "subsidized by the taxpayer". No one owes another person healthcare coverage.
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
There's the entire problem. You think it's your place to determine what duty I have to someone else. I get to pick those, you don't.
Depends on whether or not I, not you, determine whether that person is in discomfort and need. You don't get to make that determination for me just like I don't get to make it for you.
I have said for years that if I think someone is truly in need of help and I can help them, I will. If I don't, I won't. It's that simple.
If I don't think someone truly needs help, I'll walk right past them. If someone is in a position not of their own doing or truly can't help themselves, and that's based on MY determination, I'll help. If that person caused their own problems by making bad choices and/or only wants something handed to them, and that's also based on MY determination, I'll let them go without. I didn't create their situation, therefore, it's not my place to offset the results.
You expect other peoples kids to go overseas and kill terrorists, or not? If, or not, why are you not going into Syria and hunting down ISIS:? Don't tell us that is apples and oranges, some people can help others and object to paying taxes, others pay taxes and vote to make taxes pay for the good of us all.
My wife and I are looking for a new home, a new expensive home for this reason. We own our home free and clear and thus don't have enough tax right offs, and give too much of our money to a Congress which claims to be fiscally conservative, but have yet to cut their salary and benefits, and are ever willing to cut benefits and aid to others.
So, by buying an expensive home we will pay about the same in local taxes, but we will pay more to taxes spend locally and less to the DOD which (for example) drops $40,000 humvees out of the sky, one after another, & each is totally destroyed, or to members of Congress who spent millions on political witch hunts and nothing to fix the needs of the American citizen.
What you need to do with that money is provide for the needs of all the people you say you care about. If you don't, your words that you care are nothing more than bullshit from the typical Liberal. If you care and you think taxes should go to help, you shouldn't have a problem with paying more. Since you won't, you're a typical piece of shit liar.
There's a difference between military spending and the type spending you think Congress should do. One is directly listed in the Constitution and the nonsense social programs aren't. You can't fix the American citizen by handing him/her something for nothing. That you think so proves you're a moron. Get out of the way of those of us that know how to do things and STFU. We'll tell you when you can speak. Outside of that, keep your damn mouth shut.
What does the Constitution say about infrastructure?
The only problem with that argument is that we are not saving any dollars.
We are saving lives. Which do you value more?
Who is we, and how are you going to prove that (believe me I hope it is true).
But the horsecrap of 47,000 a year dying because of a lack of insurance really created a bad taste for statistics in this argument. Nobody could produce the corpses even though by now they should have over 600,000 of them.
I have no idea how many lives have been saved. What I do know is less medical care is being provided in ER's and more maladies are being treated early, which one may infer prevents some early deaths, and the greater cost to all of us when a disease is allowed to progress and insurance and the patient must pay more - those costs are paid by the taxpayer, and their tax dollars are then not used to fix roads, issue permits timely and provide necessary police and fire protections, etc.
The cost to local government is reduced when a patient is able to see a doctor outside of the public hospital whose operation is subsidized the the taxpayer.
The worst part about is what you said is "subsidized by the taxpayer". No one owes another person healthcare coverage.
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
There's the entire problem. You think it's your place to determine what duty I have to someone else. I get to pick those, you don't.
Depends on whether or not I, not you, determine whether that person is in discomfort and need. You don't get to make that determination for me just like I don't get to make it for you.
I have said for years that if I think someone is truly in need of help and I can help them, I will. If I don't, I won't. It's that simple.
If I don't think someone truly needs help, I'll walk right past them. If someone is in a position not of their own doing or truly can't help themselves, and that's based on MY determination, I'll help. If that person caused their own problems by making bad choices and/or only wants something handed to them, and that's also based on MY determination, I'll let them go without. I didn't create their situation, therefore, it's not my place to offset the results.
You expect other peoples kids to go overseas and kill terrorists, or not? If, or not, why are you not going into Syria and hunting down ISIS:? Don't tell us that is apples and oranges, some people can help others and object to paying taxes, others pay taxes and vote to make taxes pay for the good of us all.
My wife and I are looking for a new home, a new expensive home for this reason. We own our home free and clear and thus don't have enough tax right offs, and give too much of our money to a Congress which claims to be fiscally conservative, but have yet to cut their salary and benefits, and are ever willing to cut benefits and aid to others.
So, by buying an expensive home we will pay about the same in local taxes, but we will pay more to taxes spend locally and less to the DOD which (for example) drops $40,000 humvees out of the sky, one after another, & each is totally destroyed, or to members of Congress who spent millions on political witch hunts and nothing to fix the needs of the American citizen.
What you need to do with that money is provide for the needs of all the people you say you care about. If you don't, your words that you care are nothing more than bullshit from the typical Liberal. If you care and you think taxes should go to help, you shouldn't have a problem with paying more. Since you won't, you're a typical piece of shit liar.
There's a difference between military spending and the type spending you think Congress should do. One is directly listed in the Constitution and the nonsense social programs aren't. You can't fix the American citizen by handing him/her something for nothing. That you think so proves you're a moron. Get out of the way of those of us that know how to do things and STFU. We'll tell you when you can speak. Outside of that, keep your damn mouth shut.
What does the Constitution say about infrastructure?
Art I. sec 8 clause 1 gives the Congress the power to raise money for the general welfare. Roads, bridges, tunnels, electricity; a healthy population and one educated seem to fall under the general welfare clause here and in the Preamble; Clause 18 allows the Congress to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper.for providing for the general Welfare.
Both statements in COTUS are clear statements, unlike this one:
If the general Welfare clause can be parsed, the 2nd Amendment must be treated in the same manner!A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We are saving lives. Which do you value more?
Who is we, and how are you going to prove that (believe me I hope it is true).
But the horsecrap of 47,000 a year dying because of a lack of insurance really created a bad taste for statistics in this argument. Nobody could produce the corpses even though by now they should have over 600,000 of them.
I have no idea how many lives have been saved. What I do know is less medical care is being provided in ER's and more maladies are being treated early, which one may infer prevents some early deaths, and the greater cost to all of us when a disease is allowed to progress and insurance and the patient must pay more - those costs are paid by the taxpayer, and their tax dollars are then not used to fix roads, issue permits timely and provide necessary police and fire protections, etc.
The cost to local government is reduced when a patient is able to see a doctor outside of the public hospital whose operation is subsidized the the taxpayer.
The worst part about is what you said is "subsidized by the taxpayer". No one owes another person healthcare coverage.
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
"Duty" and "Obligation" are very interesting words.
There is a "moral duty" and a "moral obligation" that we have to each other (or so many would say).
Should legal means be used to enforce such morality ?
There's the entire problem. You think it's your place to determine what duty I have to someone else. I get to pick those, you don't.
Depends on whether or not I, not you, determine whether that person is in discomfort and need. You don't get to make that determination for me just like I don't get to make it for you.
I have said for years that if I think someone is truly in need of help and I can help them, I will. If I don't, I won't. It's that simple.
If I don't think someone truly needs help, I'll walk right past them. If someone is in a position not of their own doing or truly can't help themselves, and that's based on MY determination, I'll help. If that person caused their own problems by making bad choices and/or only wants something handed to them, and that's also based on MY determination, I'll let them go without. I didn't create their situation, therefore, it's not my place to offset the results.
You expect other peoples kids to go overseas and kill terrorists, or not? If, or not, why are you not going into Syria and hunting down ISIS:? Don't tell us that is apples and oranges, some people can help others and object to paying taxes, others pay taxes and vote to make taxes pay for the good of us all.
My wife and I are looking for a new home, a new expensive home for this reason. We own our home free and clear and thus don't have enough tax right offs, and give too much of our money to a Congress which claims to be fiscally conservative, but have yet to cut their salary and benefits, and are ever willing to cut benefits and aid to others.
So, by buying an expensive home we will pay about the same in local taxes, but we will pay more to taxes spend locally and less to the DOD which (for example) drops $40,000 humvees out of the sky, one after another, & each is totally destroyed, or to members of Congress who spent millions on political witch hunts and nothing to fix the needs of the American citizen.
What you need to do with that money is provide for the needs of all the people you say you care about. If you don't, your words that you care are nothing more than bullshit from the typical Liberal. If you care and you think taxes should go to help, you shouldn't have a problem with paying more. Since you won't, you're a typical piece of shit liar.
There's a difference between military spending and the type spending you think Congress should do. One is directly listed in the Constitution and the nonsense social programs aren't. You can't fix the American citizen by handing him/her something for nothing. That you think so proves you're a moron. Get out of the way of those of us that know how to do things and STFU. We'll tell you when you can speak. Outside of that, keep your damn mouth shut.
What does the Constitution say about infrastructure?
Art I. sec 8 clause 1 gives the Congress the power to raise money for the general welfare. Roads, bridges, tunnels, electricity; a healthy population and one educated seem to fall under the general welfare clause here and in the Preamble; Clause 18 allows the Congress to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper.for providing for the general Welfare.
Both statements in COTUS are clear statements, unlike this one:
If the general Welfare clause can be parsed, the 2nd Amendment must be treated in the same manner!A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The General Welfare Clause only relates to those duties specifically called out by the Constitution.
It is not cart blanche federal power.
However, the 2nd amendment, like all others applied only to the federal government. In true form, states have every right to exercise gun control.
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
There's the entire problem. You think it's your place to determine what duty I have to someone else. I get to pick those, you don't.
Depends on whether or not I, not you, determine whether that person is in discomfort and need. You don't get to make that determination for me just like I don't get to make it for you.
I have said for years that if I think someone is truly in need of help and I can help them, I will. If I don't, I won't. It's that simple.
If I don't think someone truly needs help, I'll walk right past them. If someone is in a position not of their own doing or truly can't help themselves, and that's based on MY determination, I'll help. If that person caused their own problems by making bad choices and/or only wants something handed to them, and that's also based on MY determination, I'll let them go without. I didn't create their situation, therefore, it's not my place to offset the results.
You expect other peoples kids to go overseas and kill terrorists, or not? If, or not, why are you not going into Syria and hunting down ISIS:? Don't tell us that is apples and oranges, some people can help others and object to paying taxes, others pay taxes and vote to make taxes pay for the good of us all.
My wife and I are looking for a new home, a new expensive home for this reason. We own our home free and clear and thus don't have enough tax right offs, and give too much of our money to a Congress which claims to be fiscally conservative, but have yet to cut their salary and benefits, and are ever willing to cut benefits and aid to others.
So, by buying an expensive home we will pay about the same in local taxes, but we will pay more to taxes spend locally and less to the DOD which (for example) drops $40,000 humvees out of the sky, one after another, & each is totally destroyed, or to members of Congress who spent millions on political witch hunts and nothing to fix the needs of the American citizen.
What you need to do with that money is provide for the needs of all the people you say you care about. If you don't, your words that you care are nothing more than bullshit from the typical Liberal. If you care and you think taxes should go to help, you shouldn't have a problem with paying more. Since you won't, you're a typical piece of shit liar.
There's a difference between military spending and the type spending you think Congress should do. One is directly listed in the Constitution and the nonsense social programs aren't. You can't fix the American citizen by handing him/her something for nothing. That you think so proves you're a moron. Get out of the way of those of us that know how to do things and STFU. We'll tell you when you can speak. Outside of that, keep your damn mouth shut.
What does the Constitution say about infrastructure?
Art I. sec 8 clause 1 gives the Congress the power to raise money for the general welfare. Roads, bridges, tunnels, electricity; a healthy population and one educated seem to fall under the general welfare clause here and in the Preamble; Clause 18 allows the Congress to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper.for providing for the general Welfare.
Both statements in COTUS are clear statements, unlike this one:
If the general Welfare clause can be parsed, the 2nd Amendment must be treated in the same manner!A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There's the entire problem. You think it's your place to determine what duty I have to someone else. I get to pick those, you don't.
Depends on whether or not I, not you, determine whether that person is in discomfort and need. You don't get to make that determination for me just like I don't get to make it for you.
I have said for years that if I think someone is truly in need of help and I can help them, I will. If I don't, I won't. It's that simple.
If I don't think someone truly needs help, I'll walk right past them. If someone is in a position not of their own doing or truly can't help themselves, and that's based on MY determination, I'll help. If that person caused their own problems by making bad choices and/or only wants something handed to them, and that's also based on MY determination, I'll let them go without. I didn't create their situation, therefore, it's not my place to offset the results.
You expect other peoples kids to go overseas and kill terrorists, or not? If, or not, why are you not going into Syria and hunting down ISIS:? Don't tell us that is apples and oranges, some people can help others and object to paying taxes, others pay taxes and vote to make taxes pay for the good of us all.
My wife and I are looking for a new home, a new expensive home for this reason. We own our home free and clear and thus don't have enough tax right offs, and give too much of our money to a Congress which claims to be fiscally conservative, but have yet to cut their salary and benefits, and are ever willing to cut benefits and aid to others.
So, by buying an expensive home we will pay about the same in local taxes, but we will pay more to taxes spend locally and less to the DOD which (for example) drops $40,000 humvees out of the sky, one after another, & each is totally destroyed, or to members of Congress who spent millions on political witch hunts and nothing to fix the needs of the American citizen.
What you need to do with that money is provide for the needs of all the people you say you care about. If you don't, your words that you care are nothing more than bullshit from the typical Liberal. If you care and you think taxes should go to help, you shouldn't have a problem with paying more. Since you won't, you're a typical piece of shit liar.
There's a difference between military spending and the type spending you think Congress should do. One is directly listed in the Constitution and the nonsense social programs aren't. You can't fix the American citizen by handing him/her something for nothing. That you think so proves you're a moron. Get out of the way of those of us that know how to do things and STFU. We'll tell you when you can speak. Outside of that, keep your damn mouth shut.
What does the Constitution say about infrastructure?
Art I. sec 8 clause 1 gives the Congress the power to raise money for the general welfare. Roads, bridges, tunnels, electricity; a healthy population and one educated seem to fall under the general welfare clause here and in the Preamble; Clause 18 allows the Congress to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper.for providing for the general Welfare.
Both statements in COTUS are clear statements, unlike this one:
If the general Welfare clause can be parsed, the 2nd Amendment must be treated in the same manner!A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Well, you know that and I know that, but '65 seems to think it only applies to things that serve his interests.
Watch him pull the old "health care isn't a right" argument out of his ass.
You expect other peoples kids to go overseas and kill terrorists, or not? If, or not, why are you not going into Syria and hunting down ISIS:? Don't tell us that is apples and oranges, some people can help others and object to paying taxes, others pay taxes and vote to make taxes pay for the good of us all.
My wife and I are looking for a new home, a new expensive home for this reason. We own our home free and clear and thus don't have enough tax right offs, and give too much of our money to a Congress which claims to be fiscally conservative, but have yet to cut their salary and benefits, and are ever willing to cut benefits and aid to others.
So, by buying an expensive home we will pay about the same in local taxes, but we will pay more to taxes spend locally and less to the DOD which (for example) drops $40,000 humvees out of the sky, one after another, & each is totally destroyed, or to members of Congress who spent millions on political witch hunts and nothing to fix the needs of the American citizen.
What you need to do with that money is provide for the needs of all the people you say you care about. If you don't, your words that you care are nothing more than bullshit from the typical Liberal. If you care and you think taxes should go to help, you shouldn't have a problem with paying more. Since you won't, you're a typical piece of shit liar.
There's a difference between military spending and the type spending you think Congress should do. One is directly listed in the Constitution and the nonsense social programs aren't. You can't fix the American citizen by handing him/her something for nothing. That you think so proves you're a moron. Get out of the way of those of us that know how to do things and STFU. We'll tell you when you can speak. Outside of that, keep your damn mouth shut.
What does the Constitution say about infrastructure?
Art I. sec 8 clause 1 gives the Congress the power to raise money for the general welfare. Roads, bridges, tunnels, electricity; a healthy population and one educated seem to fall under the general welfare clause here and in the Preamble; Clause 18 allows the Congress to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper.for providing for the general Welfare.
Both statements in COTUS are clear statements, unlike this one:
If the general Welfare clause can be parsed, the 2nd Amendment must be treated in the same manner!A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The General Welfare Clause only relates to those duties specifically called out by the Constitution.
It is not cart blanche federal power.
However, the 2nd amendment, like all others applied only to the federal government. In true form, states have every right to exercise gun control.
You're wrong.
