demint.senate.gov — December 22, 2009 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bills constitut
Dec 22, 2009 View in Crawl 4
mochamanDec 23, 2009
That's a false choice, and the problem is that this legislation did not focus on containing cost on the supply side of healthcare, rather they opted for demonizing the insurance industry. In a free market model you pay for what you can afford, instead in the insurance model there is plenty of abuse patience and doctors implement unnecessary tests which spreads the cost on everyone it is unsustainable.
jeffiekDec 23, 2009
No, I'm not old enough to remember no license required. Just old enough to remember when it was considered a right.What, really, is the difference between a right and a privilege? Just a point of view.The way I see it, and the way it was seen in the past, the people owned the roads and it was their right to use them. Now, our the government owns the roads, and they deign to give us the privilege of using them ( exactly how and when the transfer of ownership took place is beyond me - it's not recorded anywhere ).Like the right to own a gun. Who knows? Maybe in a few more decades that will also be considered a privilege.
sacrabosDec 24, 2009
No, I don't think that's it. While NCLB might have good intentions, the problem with most government programs and initiatitives is that it seeks out and promotes the lowest common denominator. This does not result in the pursuit of excellence, but more likely to complacency of mediocrity. If your goal is to have all kids pass a certain test, then you spend your time on those unlikely to pass it to JUST make it, and don't spend time or focus on grooming excellence where you find it.Here's two definitions of PRMOTE from Merriam Webster: <a class="user" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promote" rel="nofollow">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promote</a>1 a : to advance in station, rank, or honorThis would be to award or otherwise recognize excellence. The best government can do is to not be a burden to success. However, many things the government does actually restricts success, including the tax code itself (work twice the hours, make less than twice the money). Obviously some things the government does are to promote some type of behaviour, i.e. tax deduction on home mortgage interests in order to promote home ownership. Note that while home ownership is deemed to be a good thing, this tax deduction does not PROVIDE a home, but does institute some minor financial benefit (or at least remove a potential discouragement) to PROMOTE owning a home.3 slang : to get possession of by doubtful means or by ingenuityAnd example of this is amending bills to provide special loopholes beneficial to select Senators in order to secure their vote. If the Bill was truly a good bill, such bribery would not be needed. Hence the resulting in-fighting of the Democrats in turning a (IMHO) bad bill into a disgusting piece of legislation which insures Health Insurance Companies can legally steal 15-20% of every health dollar you will spend.
danheskettDec 25, 2009
Right - but the difference is now that a lot of young, healthy, and relatively poor people will be paying into the system that the middle and upper class have been supporting for decades.It's more people paying more money into the system.
danheskettDec 25, 2009
That's great, but all the courts in the country disagree with you.The health mandate is tax. Every court has ruled again and again that in fact, yes, the government can tax you for just about any reason.This is the oldest canard out there.
glassagateDec 27, 2009
Where were these "it's against the Constitution" people whenBush was in office?
rugrat54Dec 28, 2009
@danheskett:"I missed an important word in that first graph - even if you don't have insurance, you benefit by others having it. I left out a negative which made that point difficult to comprehend. My apologies. The point was and is, the uninsured benefit from the fact there are insured to carry much of their burden in paying for the system."I thought so, but I didnt want to presume it. Whether uninsured profit from the insured is not really an adequate issue to force people to buy insurance. It is the hospitals rules, not the uninsured. Whether or not you are correct in every way is an issue. Because I dont have dental insurance it costs me more and the same for a regular doctors visits."I should have guessed. A 16th amendment denier." You would have guessed wrong. Nice try! This coming from the non-researched-yet-still-have-an-opinion guy! (Doesnt everyone?!) Good job! A for effort! o.0You misunderstand me. Whether the 16th amendment was passed or not is really a non issue for me. The 16th amendment, per the supreme Court, DID NOT GIVE ANY NEW TAXING POWERS. (**HINT:The supreme Court has also defined income!**)"This isn't that hard - every court and Congress have made this clear. Unpatriotic fools like yourself want to try to find a legal argument out of taxation that doesn't exist." There you go insulting what you dont understand again!"The 16th amendment grants congress the right to tax any income regardless of source."Define Income. Then look up who is subject to it, AND look up the definitions of those."Congress has enacted specific statues establishing the IRS and various tax courts."Never disputed this. Who they are for is a different subject. **Now you should also look up the definition of jurisdiction and at the same time you should learn the definitions for the "United States" and decide which one applies for the 26 U.S.C.**"26 USC clearly defines income and requirements payment of income taxes. <a linkindex="69" class="user" href="<a linkindex="75" class="user" href="<a class="user" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html%22&quot;" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html%22&quo ...</a> rel="nofollow"><a class="user" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html&quot;&lt;/a&gt;" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html&quot;& ...</a> rel="nofollow"><a linkindex="76" class="user" href="<a class="user" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html%3C/a%3E&quot;" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html%3C/a%3 ...</a> rel="nofollow"><a class="user" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html&lt;/a&amp;" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html&lt;/a& ...</a> ...</a> This is not hard."Please point it [the definition] out to me. Thank you.List of definitions for you to look up:TaxIncomeJurisdictionUnited StatesU.S. Citizenresident alien"I see your point of view, it's just not valid. You'd like to go back to a fairy tale version of this country that never existed. A libertarian utopia that was not designed, did not exist, and never functioned."Oh, it is VERY valid. It did, and truly still does exist. That is what was so great about America. True freedom, as long as you do not hinder others freedom. Absent a contract you, nor the United States, can not compel me to do anything, including forcing me to buy something.As the supreme Court has ruled:"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbor to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." [Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906)]"I agree, people are equals. That's why everyone must contribute to the societal safety net. Including those anti-american jackoffs who wish to live in the cold, heartless, lord of the flies fantasy world they think exists somewhere, someplace."You are lawfully wrong. If we are equal why is it that you think you have the right to tell me what I must do? You see? You dont. There is no case here in American law for everyone to CON-tribute, (look this legal def. up too!) forcefully. Definitely in the United States, but you dont know the difference, do you? Do you now? No? Well then go about your merry way and I mine; my sovereignty will remain with me.You can call me all the names you want. You are wrong. But you dont know me, who I have helped, and what I have done for others. So you are, again, making a very ignorant presumption while adding nothing intellectual to the conversation.Am I against health reform? No, not at all. Am I against government control, forced health insurance, a public option, or a single-payer plan? Yes. Either way it doesnt apply to me, but you people have no idea how much power you are giving to a wholly ineffective idiot organization. You obviously have no real knowledge of history. I can see you care, in a way, about the less fortunate, but you dont look beyond your selfish indulgence to realize what the lawful and morally right plan to take is.Look up the definitions if you want to reply or I wont bother with any more info. Thank you. P.S. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! =) P.S.S. Also if you go to my profile there is a list of links that might help you if you do want to find out the info.