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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
We should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs. Not the job of taxpayers to fund the lame and lazy.
One thing democrats are skilled at is propaganda. How a backward reactionary party ever hijacked the word "progressive" is anybody's guess. Democrats make Putin look like a progressive. The issue ain't about helping people out of poverty. If it was, democrats would be behind an effort to streamline the "war on poverty" instead of blocking every effort to fix the failed policy that has torn Black families apart and created more poverty than it helped.
How much money do we have to spend on LBJ's failed 50 year old "war on poverty" to convince the low information left that it freaking don't work? Poverty programs have been set up by crooked democrat administrations to make government pimps rich and destroy minority families. Somehow it translates to votes for democrats.
publichealthwatch | Conservative Media?s Misleading Coverage Of The War On PovertyRecent research from the Columbia Population Research Center at Columbia University reveals the extent to which anti-poverty programs since the 1960s have alleviated poverty for millions of Americans. The study, titled Trends in Poverty with an Anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure, uses a uniform measure of poverty (supplemental poverty measure or SPM) to show a dramatic drop-off in poverty rates from 1967 to 2011. From the study (emphasis added):
The OPM shows the overall poverty rates to be nearly the same in 1967 and 2011 at 14% and 15% respectively. But our counterfactual estimates using the anchored SPM show that without taxes and other government programs, poverty would have been roughly flat at 27-29%, while with government benefits poverty has fallen from 26% to 16% a 40% reduction. Government programs today are cutting poverty nearly in half (from 29% to 16%) while in 1967 they only cut poverty by about one percentage point.
BTW [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] overall I do respect your belief that this bill frees up more choices FOR YOU because you assume insurance is needed anyway to pay costs, so to you, it is not losing any freedom, but working within the choices anyway.
That's fine, but please understand this is the same logic of prolife advocates do not believe banning abortion would eliminate choices either because they wouldn't chose that anyway! Or why govt imposing Christian prayer wouldn't affect their freedom if "they would choose it anyway." I don't think you like when people "of other beliefs" imposing THEIR choices on you through govt.
They feel similar to you, here, where if the "choice" is needed anyway, and helps more people by "mandating it through govt," why not?
Clearly this only works if you AGREE with that choice, and would choose it anyway, or you would argue that govt is abused to push someone's beliefs or agenda, wouldn't you?
Dante if you are going to impose YOUR standards of what is free choice on
people who don't agree, think about when Christians or prolife people impose
limits on choices where they don't see any loss or threat to freedom either.
I can appreciate if this bill helps YOU protect YOUR CHOICES, but please "equally respect the free choice of others" who are deprived of freedom by these mandates that violate their beliefs and interfere with their natural freedoms.
[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] It appears you are a bit confused with principle and ideology.
1) abortion: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues, ones own body and pregnancy; a medical choice that may or may not affect the life of a woman who is pregnant. It's very personal and in the opinion of many religious busy bodies or the state have no overriding interest that could possibly be of any value, unless of course one hides behind being a self-appointed protector of an unborn human being, a fetus. This choice or result of a sexual act between individuals should not be a state/government issue.
Hi Dante: Thanks for the extra effort to clarify this in detail; I think it is very important to make some distinctions here:
(1a) the issue of choice is one thing - and leads to admitting the problem is "faith-based" arguments and beliefs in defending the "right to life" equally as the "right to choice."
As long as the "right to life" arguments DEPEND on faith based arguments such as "when does life begin" and what constitutes a person protected by law, etc., then these arguments "technically" don't hold up under Constitutional requirements to keep religious bias out of govt authority and laws. Otherwise, the right to life could be defended equally as right to choice -- the problem is not letting "faith based beliefs" get imposed by law.
That's ONE issue
(1b) the other is DUE PROCESS. Even if both sides AGREED against abortion, the problem remains that punitive laws "after pregnancy occurs" are going to affect the women more than the man in the decisions made, including legal burdens and punishment if this is illegal. I believe this issue should be addressed separately from the choice/life issue.
I believe it was the "due process" issue that got the law struck down by Roe v. Wade.
Dante said:2) health care insurance: read the law ad the Supreme Court opinion where it is explained why the principles involved.
The 'free choice' is to pay for health care insurance, which historically the state will end up paying for in the end, or to accept the 'shared responsibility payment' in the law, known as the penalty within the mandate, that functions as a tax for the constitutional purposes of the ruling.
See?
Again there are at least TWO different issues here, Dante
(2a) If it is a tax, then it violates the principle of "no taxation without representation"
For the taxpayers who dissent, and do not agree to the terms of the taxation, this is causing multiple layers of problems as a result.
Any person or politician who is HONEST and seeking to REPRESENT the public would LISTEN to the objections and try to work them out in good faith. Anyone who DENIES the objections and dismisses the complaints as invalid is not representing those citizens.
So the spirit of the legislation is off to begin with if it does not represent the whole public.
(2b) there are OTHER ways to pay for health care that were not even addressed.
Sorry, Dante, but it is NOT "free choice" to mandate that people buy insurance and to penalize 'all other ways' of paying for health care - especially when these "other ways" are NEEDED ANYWAY because insurance does NOT cover all costs or all people. This is punitive and regulating choices, especially where health care involves religious and spiritual choices outside of govt jurisdiction.
I mentioned prison reforms where those costs taxpayers are already paying could easily pay for educational and medical loans, for example. Also immigration and drug policy reform could also free up BILLIONS of STATE dollars to pay for health care per STATE.
Dante the problem is the President wanted to make this a FEDERAL issue so he can take control as President. He wanted to initiate action, but as President he has to keep it FEDERAL.
If the health and prison problems were delegated to STATES then GOVERNORS and local reps would have responsibility, and the President could not control that process.
Dante, I cannot tell you enough that the problems need to be addressed and represented LOCALLY by STATE.
Where the FEDERAL authority comes in
is that PEOPLE and States DO reserve equal Constitutional rights to due process, petitioning and protection of the laws.
So we should INDEED take the SPIRIT of the Constitutional laws on a Federal and empower local CITIZENS and STATES to set up Constitutional protections LOCALLY using LOCAL programs and resources to manage sustainable systems.
If we delegate this to the States and people locally there is more DIRECT access, representation and accountability.
Instead, if you go through Federal levels and Congress, then it takes a lot more process to reform and make adjustments to policies/programs needed PER STATE, and each STATE has different populations to represent and serve, so their process is different.
It is selfish, shortsighted and unfair to push policies for whole states uniformly through Congress where it naturally is going to backlog the system in conflict because too many people and interests cannot be covered by one generic policy.
The federal law should have simply made it mandatory for states to manage their own health care where nobody is forced to foot the bill for expenses from other people's irresponsibility except where people AGREE to pay for those costs.
So if people AGREE to pay for insurance, or pay for hospitals or ER for others,
whatever methods or groups citizens AGREE to pay for, everyone remains free to meet their terms and work out the plans; but people CANNOT force taxpayers to pay, for example, for drug addicts who refuse to get help or commit crimes and send people to the hospital, or pay for people either to have abortions if they don't believe in that or pay to have kids as welfare tickets if they don't agree. States can set up microlending with requirements to pay back welfare, similar to educational loans, and work with charities or schools to set up medical programs where people work off their education, internships or residencies, by serving the public through clinics and teaching hospitals.
There are any number of ways to cover health care, especially by addressing prison and immigration reforms at the same time.
The federal level could oversee the security and public regulations, but the states have to address and represent their local populations to equally include all citizens.
the federal level is not designed for those specific needs.
So that is where the individual liberties or free choice are completely wiped out by these federal mandates.
The mandates selectively penalize options other than "insurance" while politically granting exemptions to whole groups. So it is not equal protection or equal choice, but only serves certain political agenda and criteria.
It makes NO sense to penalize choices such as 'charitable donations' to pay for health care or even medical facilities, programs or education directly,
when all these other avenues are NEEDED ANYWAY.
If health care reform were pursued by investing FIRST in developing programs needed to PROVIDE for public health, education and services, then people would naturally use insurance and other means to manage all the costs and services.
Instead the legislation sought to mandate insurance first, which deprived citizens of liberty to pay for health care and develop programs by FREE WILL, by business, charitable and educational outreach.
So it is basically PUNISHING people for NOT depending on federal govt to mandate insurance. Instead it should be REWARDING states and people for setting up better coverage and programs for people, and respecting natural freedom to create these locally.
One thing democrats are skilled at is propaganda. How a backward reactionary party ever hijacked the word "progressive" is anybody's guess. Democrats make Putin look like a progressive. The issue ain't about helping people out of poverty. If it was, democrats would be behind an effort to streamline the "war on poverty" instead of blocking every effort to fix the failed policy that has torn Black families apart and created more poverty than it helped.
Propaganda like; 'The rich pay 40% of their income to taxes?'
(1a): abortion: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues.
(1b): Huh?
You are still confused about individual and collective choices, the role of elected government in making laws. And this is nonsensical: "deprived of freedom by these mandates that violate their beliefs and interfere with their natural freedoms."
(2a): No it doesn't. We all have representation. You lack the most basic understanding here. Civics 101
(2b): Congress chose how to pay. An elected Congress that represents ALL the people.
For most rational people health care does NOT involve "religious and spiritual choices outside of govt jurisdiction." There are of course situations that arise where religious beliefs may butt up against science, technology, and medicine. When society and government has a compelling interest in specific cases the law gets involved.
Dante said:Whatever you are ranting and raving about the President, it was the duly elected Congress who enacted the health care law, not the President.
READ the law and the ruling legal opinion. You have strayed off the reservation in your thinking and reasoning (if you want to call it that) and your arguments [/COLOR]
We should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs. Not the job of taxpayers to fund the lame and lazy.
Here ya go!
-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.
-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.
-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
Vern said:Americans today spend almost a trillion dollars in hidden costs and in just preparing their tax returns. This is in addition to the payments they regularly make to the IRS. Each year they work full time for the government until April 21st just to pay their taxes. Their time and their money could be better spent if they were better able to make their own decisions on how to spend both.
I believe my FaST Tax Plan could be one of the best methods of implementing this. It would immediately solve most of these problems and move in a timely manner toward cementing a final solution. I believe at the same time it would be flexible enough to allow Americans to evaluate each change and make adjustments along the way.
With the FaST tax plan the first step would be replacing what we now have with a Flat tax. Which still would be an income tax but which could be temporary. Of necessity, at the same time, the process would begin of amending the U. S. Constitution by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment currently authorizing our present income tax. Since repeal requires a vote of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress plus approval by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, this may or may not take some time. So while experiencing the merits of continuing with a Flat tax, citizens could fully debate whether to continue with a Flat tax on income after repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment or make a move to replace it with a Sales Tax on consumption. It would be their choice. And in any event at that point there would be only ONE type of tax in place. We all know what revenue hungry politicians do when two taxing systems are in place at the same time.
I personally support moving to a national Sales Tax as it would immediately change our system from penalizing the production of income to penalizing consumption, leaving each citizen more in control of how much tax he or she paid. And to take care of those with lower income, who of necessity pay more tax as a percent of their income, they could be given a rebate in some amount. And for those in states who already receive much of their revenue from a sales tax, adjustments by these states with a transition over time could be possible.
There are many other benefits. It would immediately simplify the tax code, eliminate loopholes and rates and reduce the cost of compliance. The government would receive revenue from the underground economy which it is not receiving now. The tax would be a specific and direct one allowing Americans on each purchase, each day, to be able to question what they were getting for their money. Pressure would likely be brought to bear on government to spend wisely and efficiently so that the sales tax rate might be reduced.
And most importantly with a likely cut in tax rates for each American the strong economic growth that would ensue would mirror that of both the Democrat administrations of Coolidge and Kennedy and the Republican administrations of Reagan and Bush. Each cut the tax rate and the total tax revenue received by the government that year increased dramatically. We ALL wish for this.
Vern Wuensche voteforvern.com | take America back.
We should cut out ALL anti-poverty programs. Not the job of taxpayers to fund the lame and lazy.
We have 3 choices.
1. Pay everyone a living wage.
2. Subsidize everyone who doesn't earn a living wage.
3. or have our working poor live like this -->
When President Bill Clinton proposed a healthcare reform bill in 1993 that included a mandate for employers to provide health insurance to all employees through a regulated marketplace of health maintenance organizations, Republican Senators proposed an alternative that would have required individuals, but not employers, to buy insurance.[50] Ultimately the Clinton plan failed amid an unprecedented barrage of negative advertising funded by politically conservative groups and the health insurance industry and due to concerns that it was overly complex.[52] After failing to obtain a comprehensive reform of the healthcare system, Clinton negotiated a compromise with the 105th Congress to instead enact the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 1997.[53]
John Chafee
The 1993 Republican alternative, introduced by Senator John Chafee as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a "universal coverage" requirement with a penalty for noncompliance—an individual mandate—as well as subsidies to be used in state-based 'purchasing groups'.[54] Advocates for the 1993 bill included prominent Republicans who today oppose a mandate, such as Senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, and Kit Bond.[55][56] Of the 43 Republicans Senators from 1993, 20 supported the HEART Act.[48][57] Another Republican proposal, introduced in 1994 by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), the Consumer Choice Health Security Act, contained an individual mandate with a penalty provision;[58] however, Nickles subsequently removed the mandate from the bill, stating he had decided "that government should not compel people to buy health insurance".[59] At the time of these proposals, Republicans did not raise constitutional issues with the mandate; Mark Pauly, who helped develop a proposal that included an individual mandate for George H.W. Bush, remarked, "I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax."[48]
We have 3 choices.
1. Pay everyone a living wage.
2. Subsidize everyone who doesn't earn a living wage.
3. or have our working poor live like this -->
We have 3 choices.
1. Pay everyone a living wage.
2. Subsidize everyone who doesn't earn a living wage.
3. or have our working poor live like this -->
Put them on a ship back to Hong Kong. Not my problem!