PDA

View Full Version : forcing some one to buy a product under law is unconstitutional?


Dokuro
12-14-2010, 09:54 AM
Health insurance mandate is unconstitutional

By News on the Net Monday, December 13, 2010
RICHMOND (December 13, 2010) – Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced today that the Commonwealth of Virginia won its lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the federal health care act. The attorney general asked the court to find that the health care mandate that every individual buy government-approved health insurance unconstitutional.

Federal District Court Judge Henry Hudson agreed with the attorney general and ruled today that the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional.

“Today we prevailed. This is a great day for the Constitution! This won’t be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution,” said Cuccinelli.

Virginia argued that the mandate that every person must buy government-approved health insurance violates the Constitution and that using the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to force people to buy a product goes beyond Congress’s power.

“The insurance mandate penalizes people for not engaging in commerce. In other words, you can get fined for doing nothing,” said Cuccinelli.

The judge agreed:

“The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance – or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage – it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”

Virginia also argued that the penalty the government wants to charge if one does not buy health insurance is not a tax. Virginia said that the government cannot call the penalty a tax to try to make it legal under Congress’s taxing authority. Congress and the president called it a penalty and said it was not a tax; they passed it as a penalty, not a tax; it works as a penalty, not as a tax. The judge again agreed with Virginia.

“When we brought suit back in March, media outlets and legal experts said we didn’t have a chance. They accused us of everything from playing politics instead of practicing law, to filing a frivolous lawsuit. They said our argument about constitutionality was in vain, that we relied on a controversial reading of the Constitution, and that we couldn’t prevail against the federal government,” said Cuccinelli.

“This ruling is extremely positive for anyone who believes in the system of federalism created by our Founding Fathers. It underscores that the Constitution’s limitations on federal power mean something. The rule of law means something. As attorney general of Virginia, I took an oath to protect the Constitution, and I’m keeping that oath.”

Cuccinelli also recognized the need for reform in health care, but said that further government intrusion was the problem, not the answer: “For the past nine months, we have been arguing the constitutionality of this law. I have said all along that this lawsuit is not about health care. It is about liberty. At the same time, I understand that people want more affordable health care, and I sympathize with people who honestly can’t afford it.

“But as someone who has sworn to uphold the law, I cannot endorse taking away the rights of all so that government can provide health care to some.

“If we cross this constitutional line with health care now – where the government can force us to buy a private product and say it is for our own good – then we will have given the government the power to force us to buy other private products, such as cars, gym memberships, or even asparagus. The government’s power to intrude on our lives for our own good will be virtually unlimited.

“You may be willing to put up with that now, when the government is doing something you like. But what happens when it starts to impose things on you that you do not like? Then, it will be too late.

“Yes, parts of our health care system need to be fixed. Yes, expenses are out of control. Yes, not everyone’s needs are being met. But there are better solutions than giving up our freedom. The problem with health care costs is not that there is not enough government involvement. It is that there is too much government. It is time we took the power out of the hands of the politicians and put it in the hands of the consumers,” he said.

Before the ruling came down, Cuccinelli initiated conversations with the Justice Department about fast-tracking the suit to the U.S. Supreme Court. “With this ongoing court battle, there is a great deal of uncertainty for states, individuals, and businesses as to whether this law will be around two years from now or not. We need this resolved as quickly as possible – for the good of our people and our economy,” said Cuccinelli.






meanwhile i have two tickets for my car

on my Cadillac fleet-wood i got a ticket for not having insurance on a car i just wipe down with a diaper

i got a tick the other day for talking on my phone with out a ear peace....

Uncle Steezo
12-14-2010, 10:45 PM
sounds like an issue of not having enough money to buy the things you need.
Learn to grind before you shine...
NtF3mPmkFEI

Dokuro
12-14-2010, 11:11 PM
oh no i can buy insurance when ever i wont to but making it a law to buy it come on
and i mean

come-on
http://www.jimmylegs.com/images2/jimmy4legs2.gif

pro.Graveface
12-15-2010, 10:01 AM
tru yo they force thiese things and its the same with health insurance and tax

Dokuro
12-15-2010, 12:10 PM
tax is OK
but products and insurance is not cool

Dokuro
12-15-2010, 12:13 PM
tax is OK
but products and insurance is not cool

Sense-A
12-17-2010, 06:08 PM
Obamacare passed an entire year ago. People are just now realizing it is an unfunded mandate? The same libtards that thought they were getting something extra for free are now upset. It's sort of a running joke that the one thing that HUSSEIN obama considered his best victory so far is unconstitutional.

This mandate is different from car insurance. Driving is a privilege. You can choose not to own and drive a personal vehicle on public roads and NOT have to buy auto insurance. You can also choose to put funds into a reserve account with the DMV to sidestep the requirement to buy auto insurance.

But how do you get out of being FORCED to buy health insurance? Obamacare suggests that JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE ALIVE that you HAVE TO PURCHASE health insurance; even if you do not use the American medical system.

Liberals are fucking idiots. Maybe it'll take you a year or so to catch on to that one. Lazy unemployed liberals ALREADY have plenty of FREE access to medical care in the best medical system in the entire world. So for one thing it was never even a crisis to begin with. People aren't left dying on the streets because they don't have health insurance. That is a fucking lie that the libz try to spread. Not only this, but they lied by telling you that this bill was going to reduce spending when it drastically INCREASES spending.

Problem - Reaction - Solution

What lesson should you learn from this? Think twice before EVER voting for a fucker with a (D) beside his name on the ballot.

It is also fucking ridiculous that during all this talk about tax cuts the liberals kept accusing the Republicans of "giving tax breaks to the rich." The Republicans aren't lowering taxes. They just want to keep taxes the same! They want to extend the Bush tax cuts, not cut them deeper! Also, the liberals want to RAISE estate taxes! Estate tax is double taxation!!! THOSE LIBERAL FUCKS! Also, the liberals stuffed PORK into the bill by extending unemployment benefits. THESE LAZY FUCKS ALREADY GET TO STAY ON UNEMPLOYMENT FOR 2 YEARS (99 weeks)! GET A JOB YOU FUCKING BUMS! Instead liberals want people to stay on the government TEET. Also, the liberals accuse the Republicans for increasing the deficit when in fact it is the liberals that have the track record of not only SPENDING more but also generating LESS REVENUE for the federal government the last 30 years. The liberals are primarily to blame if you are upset with the national debt. But they tell you otherwise. They are too dumb to know anything about the Laffe curve. Now, even Obama is trying to distance himself from the dumbfuck liberals in congress in his own party. Also the liberals have led you to believe that they have been at the mercy of the Republicans' demands regarding the tax legislation the last two months. FUCKER the Demoncrats have the majority in both houses of congress! You fuckers can pass anything you want with majority! The problem is that about 1/3 of the Demoncrats are so sick of their own party's incompetency that they are now voting along Republican lines.

For more information, refer to my thread about the retardation of American Social Liberal Demoncrats.

Sense-A
12-17-2010, 06:17 PM
By the way, healthcare is not a right. A car is not a right. A house is not a right. Education is not a right.

You get to have the PURSUIT of happiness. That means get a fucking job and work your way up like GOOD Americans.

YOu keep taxing the rich taxing the rich taxing the rich. Then you complain that government cedes to the rich peoples demands? Of course they do you bitches. Because they're the ones paying the way for all you lazy bums!!! Those roads you drive on, those schools you go to, those electric lines going to your house. How much of that DID YOU pay for? You probably get a full tax refund every year. Our tax system is TOO PROGRESSIVE. So progressive now that rich people just move overseas and export their shit back to the USA and we pay double for it and don't get the benefit of having jobs for everyone.

If anything, the Democrats should have raised taxes for people making LESS THAN $250,000/year, not those who make more than that who already pay fortunes more than you do. And for the love of GOD phase out the fucking welfare system. It is absurdly rampant with abuse now. I bet over half the people on unemployment aren't even looking for a fucking job.

Dokuro
12-17-2010, 06:45 PM
no ones taxing the rich right now dude haven't you been paying attention.


your like a dude that just woke up in the middle of class when the teacher asked you a question. you gave the answer of what you think you know.

stop going to church and stop watching fox

but your right all those things are not a right but the reps still tried to push that law through, just so the dems couldn't push there bullshit ordinance through.

theres just bickering among them-selfs and there both fucking wrong

i leave it to you to decide who is more wrong

its like picking between Christians and Muslims it doesn't matter there all the same

Uncle Steezo
12-17-2010, 06:50 PM
i bet sense-a couldn't produce $1000 cash right now if asked to.

Dokuro
12-17-2010, 06:52 PM
agree

but i'm kinda enjoying all the the GOPs coming to this forum

Sense-A
12-18-2010, 10:45 AM
no ones taxing the rich right now dude haven't you been paying attention.


First of all don't call me "dude." And really? Who told you that? Your idol Keith Olbermann?

First of all you have to understand what the Bush Tax cuts actually are. And you have to analyze their effects. The USA was making GOOD revenue even after the tax cuts. Now liberals will tell you that tax cuts are COSTING the USA money. But that is absolutely wrong. Just because you decrease or increase a tax rate doesn't mean that you will necessarily take in less or more tax revenue. This is the GREATEST misconception, as an accountant, that I see people make.

Look up "Laffe Curve" in a search engine. Scroll past all the liberal blog posts that might pop up trying to discredit the truth of the curve and find some meaty information on the statistical basis of the curve and the historical proof.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg
chart from: http://taxprof.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg

It is my opinion (based on figures, charts, statistics) that the Bush Tax Cuts actually brought in MORE FEDERAL REVENUE and that there is a strong although not direct correlation between the two. Congress has the responsibility to balance the budget, not the President. It was the Demoncrats that took the majority in congress in 2006 that spent spent spent money they didn't have. So why do they blame GWB when it was THEM? Not that I give GWB a free pass at all.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/Images/federal-government-revenues-600.jpg

Do you see that? "Income, capital, and corporate" tax cuts helped revenue SURGE!!

Liberal: buh buh but i thought tax cuts for the rich were going to increase the deficit!

Me: No you liberal dumbfuck. You're an idiot.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2002/12/%7E/media/Images/Reports/B_1544_Chart_1lg_4.ashx

I've been calling it the Laffe curve. Its actually the "Laffer" curve. Something simple that you learn in college business school. I URGE that some of you actually attempt to get a business degree. There is a lot that you think you know but you don't know.

Basically you keep raising taxes until you hit the sweet spot. Beyond the sweet spot, raising taxes only effectively DECREASES tax revenue as a whole. We are already past the point of diminishing returns.

Lets forget about the tax cuts for a second and just look at our national debt problem because this is our ultimate concern.

Fiscal year (begins
10/01 of prev. year) Value % of GDP
2001 $144.5 billion 1.4%
2002 $409.5 billion 3.9%
2003 $589.0 billion 5.5%
2004 $605.0 billion 5.3%
2005 $523.0 billion 4.3%
2006 $536.5 billion 4.1%
2007 $459.5 billion 3.4%
2008 $962.2 billion 6.6%
2009 $1785.6 billion 12.5%
2010 $1471.0 billion (est.)10.0%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Obama and the Demoncrats added almost $2 trillion to the deficit in one year alone! Yikes! And they're still blaming W Bush. Obama was blaming Bush again at the speech to the unions a while back. I'm sure that a portion of this debt is the aftermath of prior years. But why are we spending spending spending on all these stimulus programs that simply haven't and didn't work? If they did we'd see effective results as we did with GWB's tax cuts. In the REAL world, people want RESULTS! Not a bunch of liberal rhetorical bullshit!

Some arguments against extending the Bush tax cuts is that it isn't as much "bang for the buck" as letting them expire and using the mythological EXTRA REVENUE on more stimulus. But historically I suspect that the expiration of the cuts won't REALLY yield extra revenue. Another argument I think liberals might use is that the tax revenues in 2005 and 2006 are outliers and merely part of the business cycle, and that we must historically go back farther to realize that tax cuts do not increase tax revenue.

Also, supposedly there are CBO and joint tax committee reports that suggest that the tax cuts do not pay for themselves. But the CBO also told me that Obamacare was going to save us money over the next 10 years which I will not believe until I see it.

I believe that our country has some of the most oppressive corporate tax rates in the world. We need jobs! Corporations hire people! And right now I think that corporations are moving away from this country or else just outsourcing and avoiding the USA's oppressive tax rates.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/800px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png

If you liberals are so concerned about keeping federal revenue high so you can SPEND SPEND SPEND like you do for your wife because that's the only reason she stays around, then you should address the real problem:

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1Come on now. That is half the population that can begin paying their fair share. Or at least pay something! Maybe if everyone was at least paying some federal income tax they'd pay more attention to the dipshits they are electing into office.

Okay enough charts. I already proved my point. To finish off, I'd like for you guys to actually UNDERSTAND the Bush tax cuts before you start dissing them. They were actually quite genius if I may say so myself. Well, I thought GWB mailing us stimulus checks was stupid, but if you are going to stimulate the economy that is the MOST fair way to do it. To actually mail Americans checks instead of just give it all to unions and corporations like Obama does.

The "Bush Tax Cuts" consist of the "Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002 (JCWA), and The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA)" (source:http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html)


According to the Treasury Department*, there have been 19 significant federal tax cuts since the end of World War II. Three of them have been passed under the Administration of George W. Bush Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001


Major tax areas affected
Income tax

EGTRRA generally reduced the rates of individual income taxes:

* a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.
* the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
* the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
* the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
* the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
* the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

The EGTRRA in many cases lowered the taxes on married couples filing jointly by increasing the standard deduction for joint filers to between 174% and 200% of the deduction for single filers.

Additionally, EGTRRA increased the per-child tax credit and the amount eligible for credit spent on dependent child care, phased out limits on itemized deductions and personal exemptions for higher income taxpayers, and increased the exemption for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and created a new depreciation deduction for qualified property owners.
[edit] Capital gains tax

The capital gains tax on qualified gains of property or stock held for five years was reduced from 10% to 8%.

Qualified and retirement plans

EGTRRA introduced sweeping changes to retirement plans, incorporating many of the so-called Portman-Cardin provisions proposed by those House members in 2000 and earlier in 2001. Overall it raised pre-tax contribution limits for defined contribution plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), increased defined benefit compensation limits, made non-qualified retirement plans more flexible and more similar to qualified plans such as 401(k)s, and created a "catch-up" provision for older workers.

EGTRRA allows, for the first time, for participants in non-qualified 401(a) money purchase, 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity, and governmental 457(b) deferred compensation plans (but not tax-exempt 457 plans) to "roll over" their money and consolidate accounts, whether to a different non-qualified plan, to a qualified plan such as a 401(k), or to an IRA. Prior rules only allowed plan moneys to leave the plan and maintain its tax deferred status only if the money went directly to an IRA or to an IRA and back into a "like kind" defined contribution retirement account. For example, 403(b) moneys leaving the old employer could only go to the new employer's defined contribution plan if it were also a 403(b). Now the old 401(k) plan money could be transferred directly in a trustee-to-trustee "rollover" to an IRA and then from the IRA to a new employer's 403(b) or the entire transfer could be directly from the old employer's 403(b) to the new employer's 401(k). That the new Tax Act allows employers to do so does not mean that any employer is forced to accept new money from the outside.

The so-called "catch-up" provision allows employees over the age of 50 to make additional contributions to their retirement plans over and above the normal limits. For workers who are already retired, the law raises the age for minimum required distributions (MRDs), directing the Treasury to revise its life expectancy tables and simplify MRD rules.

EGTRRA created two new retirement savings vehicles. The Deemed IRA or Sidecar IRA is a Roth IRA attached as a separate account to an employer-sponsored retirement plan; while the differing tax treatment is preserved for the employee, the funds may be commingled for investment purposes. It is an improvement upon the unpopular qualified voluntary employee contribution (QVEC) provision developed in the early 1980s. The so-called Roth 401(k)/403(b) is a new tax-qualified employer-sponsored retirement plan to become effective in 2006, and would offer tax treatment in a retirement plan similar to that offered to account holders of Roth IRAs.

For plan sponsors, the law requires involuntary cash-out distributions of 401(k) accounts into a default IRA. It accelerates the mandatory vesting schedule applied to matching contributions, but increases the portion of employer contributions permitted from profit sharing. Small employers are granted tax incentives to offer retirement plans to their employees, and sole proprietors, partners and S corporation shareholders gain the right to take loans from their company pension plans.
[edit] Educational savings incentives
Wiki letter w.svg This section requires expansion.
[edit] Estate and gift tax rules

The EGTRRA made sweeping changes to the estate tax, gift tax, and generation-skipping transfer tax.

* The estate tax unified credit exclusion, which was $675,000 in 2001 but scheduled to increase by steps to $1,000,000 in 2006, was increased to $1,000,000 in 2002, $1,500,000 in 2004, $2,000,000 in 2006, and $3,500,000 in 2009, with repeal of the estate tax and generation-skipping tax scheduled for 2010.

* The maximum estate tax, gift tax, and generation-skipping tax rate, which was 55% in 2001 (with an additional 5% for estates over $10,000,000 in order to eliminate the benefit of the lower estate tax brackets) was reduced to 50% in 2002, with an additional 1% reduction each year until 2007, when the top estate tax rate became 45%. P.L. 107-16 amended Code Section 2001 to change the rate to 49% in 2003, going down by 1% each year through 2009. (Because of the increasing exclusion and decreasing top tax rate, the estate tax effectively became a tax of 45% on estates over $2,000,000 in 2007.)

* The state estate tax credit, which effectively gave the states a part of the estate tax otherwise payable to the federal government, was phased out between 2002 and 2005 and replaced by a deduction for state estate taxes in 2005.

* The gift tax was not repealed, and the unified credit exclusion has remained at $1,000,000 for gift tax purposes despite the increases in the estate tax exclusion, but the maximum gift tax rate was reduced to 35% beginning in 2010.

* Because of the repeal of the estate tax in 2010, complicated new "carry-over basis" provisions were enacted which would increase the income tax on capital gains realized by some estates and heirs. (Under pre-EGTRRA law, property that is subject to estate tax gets a new income tax basis equal to fair market value, eliminating any capital gain on lifetime appreciation.)

Because EGTRRA is subject to a "sunset" provision, the estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes will all be automatically reinstated in 2011 unless Congress acts before then. Efforts were made during the 109th Congress to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent, but those measures were not enacted, and with the Democratic party majority in Congress after the 2006 election, it appears unlikely that the estate tax will be repealed, although changes to the exclusions and rates are likely.

Effects of the Alternative Minimum Tax

EGTRRA and the 2003 act significantly lowered the marginal tax rates for nearly all US taxpayers. One byproduct of this tax rate reduction was that it brought to prominence a previously lesser known provision of the US Internal Revenue Code, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was originally designed as a way of making sure that wealthy taxpayers could not take advantage of "too many" tax incentives and reduce their tax obligation by too much. It is an alternate system of calculating a taxpayer's tax liability that removes many so called "tax preference items". However the applicable AMT rates were not adjusted in step with the lowered rates of EGTRRA and the 2003 act, causing many more people to face higher taxes because of the AMT than had originally been planned. This reduced some of the benefit of EGTRRA and the 2003 act for many upper-middle income earners, particularly those with large deductions for state and local income taxes, dependents, and property taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_ of_2001
Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002


increased carryback of net operating losses to 5 years (through September 2003), extended the exception under Subpart F for active financing income (through 2006), and created 30 percent expensing for certain capital asset purchases (through September 2004).

The act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9, 2002. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_Creation_and_Worker_Assistance_Act_of_2002
The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003


Among other provisions, the act accelerated certain tax changes passed in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, increased the exemption amount for the individual Alternative Minimum Tax, and lowered taxes of income from dividends and capital gains.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page states that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the JGTRRA.[5]

Description of cuts

JGTRRA continued on the precedent established by the 2001 EGTRRA, while increasing tax reductions on investment income from dividends and capital gains.
[edit] Accelerated credits and rate reductions

JGTRRA accelerated the gradual rate reduction and increase in credits passed in EGTRRA. The maximum tax rate decreases originally scheduled to be phased into effect in 2006 under EGTRRA were retroactively enacted to apply to the 2003 tax year. In addition, the child tax credit was increased to what would have been the 2010 level, and "marriage penalty" relief was accelerated to 2009 levels. In addition, the threshold at which the alternative minimum tax applies was also increased.
[edit] Investments

JGTRRA increased both the percentage rate at which items can be depreciated and the amount a taxpayer may choose to expense under Section 179, allowing them to deduct the full cost of the item from their income without having to depreciate the amount.

In addition, the capital gains tax decreased from rates of 8%, 10%, and 20% to 5% and 15%. Capital gains taxes for those currently paying 5% (in this instance, those in the 0% and 15% income tax brackets) are scheduled to be eliminated in 2008. However, capital gains taxes remain at the regular income tax rate for property held less than one year. Certain categories, such as collectibles, remained taxed at existing rates, with a 28% cap. In addition, taxes on "qualified dividends" were reduced to the capital gains levels. "Qualified dividends" excludes most income from foreign corporations, real estate investment trusts, and credit union and bank "dividends" that are nominally interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2 003
GWB tax cuts were a success. He got us out of what could have been a deep recession following the greatest attack on our country in its history. Business flourished. Obama knows this. That is why he wanted to extend the cuts without lending too much credibility to GWB. But the dumbfucks in congress don't even understand the difference between "spending" and "revenue." They are too busy trying to shove PORK into the tax bill. What the fuck does unemployment benefits extensions have to do with tax policy? Nothing. And liberal media keeps telling you that the extension decreases rates from what they currently are. A LIE. the payroll tax cut is a wise move and I actually lend respect to Obama for wanting that in there. Corporate tax is just a double tax anyways. I've already explained that in previous threads and think it went over most peoples' heads since you guys hardly even know how a corporation is structured and operates. I recommend you buy some stocks and begin finding out yourself by participating in the genius system of democratically owned companies which you get a stake in.

i bet sense-a couldn't produce $1000 cash right now if asked to.

Come on kid. I made over $1000 in passive tax free income on the stock market alone in the last two weeks off of ticker symbols TBT, VLO, FTO, DRYS, IRE amongst others. I've been calling the peaks perfectly lately. Bond bubble gonna burst. European bank stocks undervalued. Rode the devalued oil stocks up for a quick profit. Etc. Don't ever question my expertise on this shit you dummy. I analyze this shit on a daily basis. I'm a fucking insomniac. I dream about ways to make money when you're too busy trying to figure out how to pay your utility bills you schmoe. In conclusion, I make more money clicking my mouse in my spare time than you do in your 40 hour job.

Sense-A
12-18-2010, 11:06 AM
agree

but i'm kinda enjoying all the the GOPs coming to this forum

I can't help but think you are referring to me. I have no allegiance to the Republican party. As much as I hate the Republican party, they are CERTAINLY much better than the Democratic party for many many reasons which I can itemize out for you if you challenge me to.

I actively research candidates from their early primary runs onward. In the last election I voted for an Indian woman for governor, a conservative black man as my congressman, a libertarian, and even several Democrats. For each office I felt that I did my due diligence in researching all candidates. I am strongly against people who merely vote along party lines. I stand by each one of my votes with confidence that I made the right choice and I went into the booth educated and prepared. I actually encourage you guys to participate in primaries and to not wait until November 2nd when you are only limited to two or three choices.

Edgar Erebus
12-19-2010, 05:12 AM
You post a lot of graphs and data and all other stuff, the fact remains that you have health on the level of a second world country.

Sense-A
12-19-2010, 10:03 AM
You post a lot of graphs and data and all other stuff, the fact remains that you have health on the level of a second world country.

Really? The richest people in this country that can afford the best top-notch most cutting edge medical care aren't leaving this country to go get their operations and surgeries done elsewhere. No. They stay right here. And all the brightest students who want a medical career....where do they go to study? At AMERICAN medical universities.

Please post evidence of ONE SINGLE American who died because they had an emergency health problem that needed IMMEDIATE attention but were denied because they didn't have an insurance card. NAME ONE!!!! You can't. Because it doesn't happen. We take care of you unemployed ghetto dirtbags everytime you show up with a gunshot wound and ask for payment LATER and then you don't pay and there is no punishment except a lower credit score...oooooooooh. Why is healthcare expensive? Because the doctor spent 8 rigorous years in medical school getting straight A's and paying top dollar for a top notch education! When have you ever spent 8 years committed to doing anything constructive besides doing drugs?

How come you fucks always afford new air force ones, new gold chains, new cell phones, text message plans, cable television, new cars, new clothes, cigarettes, beer, mp3 players, $5 packs of blunts, stereos, wide screen tvs, etc. etc. but you can't afford some high deductible health insurance?!? Because your priorities are mixed the fuck up. That is why.

At this point, I almost agree that health insurance should be FORCED upon people. Because they are too ignorant to get it for themselves. Sort of like Social Security. You want people to have the FREEDOM to invest in their own retirement. But the reality is that most people are too fucking dumb to save a penny for their own retirement. So you have to take it out of their fucking paychecks FOR THEM.

Edgar Erebus
12-19-2010, 03:54 PM
Really cool dude. If I was the richest person in the world I'd have awesome medical care too. But I'm not.

Actually, just to make myself straight:


I don't live in the ghetto. And I keep myself clean.
Even though I'm unemployed at the moment (actively seeking employment, I got a few offers last week) I'm not on welfare and I regularly pay my obligatory health tax.
I've never been shot.
I don't do drugs.
I don't own a single pair of Air Force ones.
I don't own a single gold chain.
I have a three years old cellphone that I got on discount.
Since then I haven't changed my text message plan.
I don't own a cable TV.
I don't own a car.
I buy new clothes only if I rip some older stuff.
I don't drink beer. And I'm trying to quit smoking.
I have a five years old 2GB MP3 player that still works perfectly.
I haven't bought a blunt for almost two years now.
I got my mid-size stereo for my 21st birthday.
I don't own a wide screen.
I'm not black.
I'm not American.

And since I'm not American, I know pretty well that having obligatory health insurance, taken out of your pay BEFORE you actually get it (so you don't even see that money and you don't miss it) is a pretty decent solution. Everyone pays it, everyone gets their share of medical care without paying for it directly, everyone is happy enough. And if you want more than that, you can always pay. Every hospital has it's own "over-standard" department for rich guys who pay for that. But me, I don't need it. I'm perfectly happy with what I get for my 40€ monthly... without any bill handed to me afterwards.

And stuff you said about studying at AMERICAN (USA! FUCK YEAH!) universities is more of a testament to the quality of your universities than your health care system.



Plus... My girlfriend's aunt, when he comes over here from North Carolina, always buys as much medicines and does most of her check-ups before going back - simply because here she gets it for free and with same quality.

TheBoarzHeadBoy
12-19-2010, 04:17 PM
Cool.

I'm white, I live in a very wealthy rural area. I also keep myself clean.
I am employed at a job my dad got for me under the table at his business. I'm not on welfare and don't pay taxes.
I've never been shot.
I do do drugs.
I don't like Air Force Ones, I rock topsiders.
I don't wear jewelery because that's effeminate. I sometimes wear a gold watch when I want to look baller.
I still don't have a smartphone (I had just gotten a new phone before they dropped but I will by Christmas.)
...

No one cares.

Edgar Erebus
12-19-2010, 04:44 PM
Maybe you would understand if you read the last post on the former page, this way I wouldn't care either.

Sense-A
12-20-2010, 08:20 AM
I disagree with you. I believe it is something that should NOT be socialized. My father lives in the USA and hasn't been to a doctor in over 25 years! Why should he have money taking out of his paycheck before he even gets it if it is for a service that he NEVER uses!!

People need to insure against their own risks. That is called being responsible. I insure my house in case a hurricane comes this way or an earthquake stretches a fault line across my property. I insure my car in case I run over a drunk in the street and he tries suing me for all I'm worth. I eat healthy and exercise to INSURE that I won't have to go to a doctor in the first place.

In a free market you give people the CHOICE and the FREEDOM to decide how to spend THEIR money. If you don't like CHOICES or FREEDOM then sure, you're government can take all the money out of your paycheck for you and spend it on what THEY think that YOU need.

Have I swayed you to my side at all to look at healthcare from this sort of viewpoint? All I'm saying is people should be responsible for preparing and INSURING against their own risk of needing medical attention. Perhaps we just need to develop more of a culture that teaches people to use insurance properly and to be more healthy in the first place and to make insurance a priority over a new pair of sneakers and rims for your car.

If EVERYONE needed healthcare everday, insurance companies wouldn't make money. The REASON they make money is because they pool a bunch of people's money who pay for health insurance but never actually use it. By making health insurance a government program, you are just allowing government to MAKE MONEY. That is a big part of our economy that gives opportunities to you and me to make money in the healthcare sector that we are willing to just hand over to government so they can make all the profit. I consider that a bad thing. Judging by your argument, you might like to hand over some other businesses to the government too, no?

Edgar Erebus
12-20-2010, 11:25 AM
People should also help other people when in need. That's called solidarity. It also gives you the moral right to demand for help when you need it.

And yes, I would give some other businesses to the government, and no, I don't see anything bad for the government to have some money reserves, again for the reasons of solidarity. Quit talking like absolute free market is a flawless system. It isn't. It's actually quite self-destructive.

Sense-A
12-20-2010, 05:50 PM
Free market capitalism is the best economic system in the history of mankind. Is it perfect? No. But what you are alluding to in your posts is something closer to communism, in which all your work and your pay is confiscated by the government and then they decide how much bread you get and how much cheese you get and what kind of medical care you get. And you know what happens? You end up getting less of everything and everyone becomes fucking poor. Its happened time and time and time again. The free market is self destructive? America is only 234 years old and is the strongest most powerful economy in the WORLD and our currency is the number one currency in the world. Every communist regime collapses in less than half a century. Read up on history. Now go develop a skill and a product or service and go market yourself in the FREE MARKET and determine your own future and stop complaining. You know what is self destructive? The losers who blame all their personal failures on society as a whole. NOW THAT IS SELF DESTRUCTIVE!!

Sense-A
12-20-2010, 06:01 PM
People should also help other people when in need. That's called solidarity. It also gives you the moral right to demand for help when you need it.

And what the fuck does that have to do with government? I do LOTS of charity and most of it is through my church of through my college. I don't give government money to give to other people. I help people MYSELF!!! I give up my own time and my own skills and contribute it to people in my community. Liberals don't do a fucking thing for society except complain that government doesn't do enough for society. Trust me, government already does WAY TOO FUCKING MUCH. You like big government? I don't. A behemoth government is a government that is too powerful and a government that you cannot trust. Thanks to people like you bitching that government doesn't do enough to help the lazy uneducated fucking poor who've already brought all their own problems on themselves is a fucking cop out and sadly, that sort of attitude is becoming contagious and ruining the upcoming generation in this country.

A solid community doesn't involve government. A solid community is me going to church and sharing my faith with fellow man. Solidarity is me preparing meals for bums at the homeless shelter. Solidarity is me helping the old neighbors down the street or helping your grandma carry the groceries to her car. Solidarity isn't a fucking welfare check. That is where your confusion lies.

DEMAND FOR HELP? What the fuck? SO you think that people in need have the RIGHT to demand things from me? See how fucking far that gets you!!! How about ask me to help you. In matter of fact, how about asking me nicely instead of acting like you are ENTITLED! YES!!! People like you with the piss poor attitude that they are ENTITLED to everything that I worked hard for in my life is one of the primary fucking things that is wrong with people in this country. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SHIT!!! NOTHING!! YOU GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE HAPPINESS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THAT IS IT!!! If you can't make it happen on your own, then fuck you. And fuck anyone else who thinks because they are a lazy sack of shit that can't keep a job that they have the RIGHT to just DEMAND my help. Nobody owes you shit. The government doesn't owe you shit, your fellow Americans don't owe you shit. You better learn that pretty quick.

Edgar Erebus
12-21-2010, 03:14 PM
Dude. I'm not American, that's first. I actually live in an ex-communist country, so I know damn well what communism is about. And I'm definitely not for re-introducing communism anywhere, but instead for using the good parts of it. Every communist idea isn't bad by default.

Second, so fucking what? You are acting like free market it is perfect and needs no improvement. But out here, in Europe, having absolute free capitalism lead straight to a communist revolution, so don't tell me it isn't self destructive. Feudalism also seemed like the best economic system in the world, and it isn't here anymore. Times change, and what is maybe best today isn't necessarily the best tomorrow. A lot of people already know that, that's why you get almost-communist guys already democratically elected in countries that tried to implement absolute free market, Bolivia for example.

Third, it's best for you to stop giving money for charity, it goes to the lazy unemployed bums anyway, so it makes no difference if you give it yourself or through government. With any charity you're helping the lazy asses to become even lazier, right? Who's confused now?

Your idea of absolute free market, absolute self-reliability and whatnot can work only in one case - if you are alone in the world. But you're not. You depend a lot on people around you. And if you think you're gonna seem cool if you act like you can achieve everything exclusively on your own, then keep dreaming. I think only way I can survive and prosper in the world we have is by having support of people around me, giving them my support in return. That's solidarity. And that's why everyone of us needs a state, or country, or anarchist community or whatever - to be supported in exchange for our support. A state is here mainly for providing a reliable way for people to make that exchange.

I paid my taxes to the government here, giving my share of support for people who need it. I think that for that I very well deserve the same support.

Edgar Erebus
12-21-2010, 03:36 PM
Just to make myself clear: when I got redundant, I didn't ask for welfare, because I don't need it.

EDIT:

Even a fucking better example, real life one, from my moms who works in that evilous socialized health (she's a doctor). A five years old kid that has leukemia. Unemployed parents. Six months of hospitalization, two more years of therapy sustainment, $3 mil minimally? Who's gonna pay for her treatment? You?