Obamacare watch...Supreme Court Decision

Jiro said:
indeed it is good that federal government cannot hold them hostage for not expanding Medicaid program but I disagree about tax burden part. I don't see how but then... maybe I'll find out for myself when the time comes :Ohno:


right about... specifically which part?
Click to expand...

Yup, it is obviously good and if federal wants state to expand the Medicaid so federal should send funds to state to expand.
 
TXgolfer said:
Oh my.... :lol:
Click to expand...

Why are you funny? Do you think that I'm kidding?

Not really...

Question: Can the federal government force states to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration?

The court's answer: Yes, but the justices ruled that the federal government cannot remove existing Medicaid funding if the states choose not to participate in the new program.
Click to expand...

Someone asked this question but they said yes with some exception - look at bold.

The federal can't remove the Medicaid funding from state if state refuses to expand, however federal could cut down the federal dollars that send to state, known as state recipient or find other way to penalize state or offer state with extra federal funds that only toward to Medicaid expansion.
 
a little bit off topic

I can remember when Clinton was POTUS and he told Texas to make the legal limit of blood alcohol 0.08 whereas Texas wanted 0.10. Clinton told Texas if Texas did not comply then the state would lose all its highway funding. Clinton got his way, which shows that state rights is really endangered.
 
rolling7 said:
a little bit off topic

I can remember when Clinton was POTUS and he told Texas to make the legal limit of blood alcohol 0.08 whereas Texas wanted 0.10. Clinton told Texas if Texas did not comply then the state would lose all its highway funding. Clinton got his way, which shows that state rights is really endangered.
Click to expand...

not quite the same thing.
 
CNN made mistake at first place. :lol:
IMG_0451.png
 
Jiro said:
not quite the same thing.
Click to expand...

Still state rights are under assault from Washington. State rights are part of the Constitution and the whole of the Constitution is under assaoult to take not only state right away but individual rights also.

back on topic
 
Romney has raised $2 million online since the ruling was read this am. From 30,000+ donors. I think the people are giving their ruling now.
 
rolling7 said:
Still state rights are under assault from Washington. State rights are part of the Constitution and the whole of the Constitution is under assaoult to take not only state right away but individual rights also.

back on topic
Click to expand...

It is depending on situation and the court disagree with you.

Driving while drinking is serious matter and some of my friends got killed in nasty accident that hit by drunk drivers. I had seen many drunk drivers around on road in here.
 
rolling7 said:
Still state rights are under assault from Washington. State rights are part of the Constitution and the whole of the Constitution is under assaoult to take not only state right away but individual rights also.

back on topic
Click to expand...

Again... not quite the same. Texas is perfectly free to opt out of federal funding for DOT. Interstate Highway is a federal funding project enacted by Eisenhower. Your post is somewhat misleading. Texas highway has to abide by federal standard or they'll risk losing federal funding however as for local roads, it does not need to abide by federal standard. That's why you see all states having different alcohol level for DUI.
 
Jiro said:
Again... not quite the same. Texas is perfectly free to opt out of federal funding for DOT. Interstate Highway is a federal funding project enacted by Eisenhower. Your post is somewhat misleading. Texas highway has to abide by federal standard or they'll risk losing federal funding however as for local roads, it does not need to abide by federal standard. That's why you see all states having different alcohol level for DUI.
Click to expand...

Yup, it is very bad compare with health care ruling.
 
kokonut said:
they argued before the court that it is a tax whence before they said the mandate wasn't a tax. Exactly right, unlimited taxing power. It continues to be an ongoing and vicious cycle of taxing when the problem is spending.

Watch your grocery bills go up. Everything that we use will go up. And the poor will be the biggest hit. O just unwittingly declared war on the poor, and everybody else that they must pay more. So much for his sacrifice and his family.
Click to expand...

So, explain why the GOP, a noted hotbed of the wealthy, were so vehemently against this thing? The GOP is not concerned about the middle class, other than getting their votes. With the middle class shrinking, soon it will be an overlooked group.

The reason these things will increase in cost is not only because of the extra insurance premiums, but also the CEOs that still demand a 20% salary bump annually, regardless of the bottom line. If you don't believe me, check out Best Buy's latest salary strategy, which was opposed by the stockholders. Their stock values have been going down the toilet for several months...

After a tumultuous several months—during which Best Buy Company, Inc., saw an exodus of several key leaders—the Richfield-based company is doling out $2 million in cash, as well as stock awards valued at roughly $8 million, to four executives....

The move seems to defy the wishes of shareholders, though, who recently rejected Best Buy’s executive compensation program in a non-binding vote.
Click to expand...
Source: Daily Developments: Best Buy Awards Bonuses Worth $10M to Retain Execs

Remind me why I should worry about the tax increase? Most of us are working low paying jobs, or none at all. You don't want to pay for my lack of employment? Very simple solution: quit working. My tax burden is nearly non-existent. Gives me lots of time for Facebook, AllDeaf, outdoor activities, you name it. Thanks for your donations to keep the roads clear of snow.
 
saywhatkid said:
So, explain why the GOP, a noted hotbed of the wealthy, were so vehemently against this thing?
Click to expand...
"Seven of the top ten wealthiest members in Congress are Democrats.

The results are based on a new study released today by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Center did an analysis of the financial statements filed by members of Congress for 2010 income and net worth.

This revelation of extreme wealth by Democratic politicians is completely contrary to the public image of the Democratic Party. President Obama has castigated “millionaires and billionaires,” suggesting they are evil people, largely Republican or conservative. The issue of the Democratic Party as the millionaire party has not yet made it into the mainstream media. But the facts are indisputable. Democratic members of Congress tend to be wealthier than their Republican counterparts.

According to the Center, 36 Senate Democrats and 30 Senate Republicans reported an average net worth in excess of $1 million in 2010. The median estimated net worth among members of the Senate Democrats was $2.58 million. Senate Republican median net worth was $2.43 million.

And, the wealthy Democrats tend to inherit their money. Republicans tend to earn it...."

The PJ Tatler » Seven of the Top Ten Wealthiest Members of Congress Are Democrats

...Remind me why I should worry about the tax increase? Most of us are working low paying jobs, or none at all.
Click to expand...
There are some of us who work low paying jobs AND pay high taxes.

You don't want to pay for my lack of employment? Very simple solution: quit working. My tax burden is nearly non-existent. Gives me lots of time for Facebook, AllDeaf, outdoor activities, you name it. Thanks for your donations to keep the roads clear of snow.
Click to expand...
Nice.
 
Reba said:
"Seven of the top ten wealthiest members in Congress are Democrats.

The results are based on a new study released today by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Center did an analysis of the financial statements filed by members of Congress for 2010 income and net worth.

This revelation of extreme wealth by Democratic politicians is completely contrary to the public image of the Democratic Party. President Obama has castigated “millionaires and billionaires,” suggesting they are evil people, largely Republican or conservative. The issue of the Democratic Party as the millionaire party has not yet made it into the mainstream media. But the facts are indisputable. Democratic members of Congress tend to be wealthier than their Republican counterparts.

According to the Center, 36 Senate Democrats and 30 Senate Republicans reported an average net worth in excess of $1 million in 2010. The median estimated net worth among members of the Senate Democrats was $2.58 million. Senate Republican median net worth was $2.43 million.

And, the wealthy Democrats tend to inherit their money. Republicans tend to earn it...."

The PJ Tatler » Seven of the Top Ten Wealthiest Members of Congress Are Democrats


There are some of us who work low paying jobs AND pay high taxes.


Nice.
Click to expand...

I think it will rather to be social difference because majority of republicans are from rural that has high number of poverty than in urban.

If you work at low paying job so your federal tax should be 10% but if your husband has more income than you do so that why federal tax is 33%, also you are married too - jointly.
 
saywhatkid said:
So, explain why the GOP, a noted hotbed of the wealthy, were so vehemently against this thing? The GOP is not concerned about the middle class, other than getting their votes. With the middle class shrinking, soon it will be an overlooked group.

The reason these things will increase in cost is not only because of the extra insurance premiums, but also the CEOs that still demand a 20% salary bump annually, regardless of the bottom line. If you don't believe me, check out Best Buy's latest salary strategy, which was opposed by the stockholders. Their stock values have been going down the toilet for several months...

Source: Daily Developments: Best Buy Awards Bonuses Worth $10M to Retain Execs

Remind me why I should worry about the tax increase? Most of us are working low paying jobs, or none at all. You don't want to pay for my lack of employment? Very simple solution: quit working. My tax burden is nearly non-existent. Gives me lots of time for Facebook, AllDeaf, outdoor activities, you name it. Thanks for your donations to keep the roads clear of snow.
Click to expand...

The CEO thing about Best Buy is a red herring when it comes to increased cost that will ultimately be passed on down to the consumers. Small stuff. Rather it is the increased cost of doing businesses alone that will get passed on down to consumers. The cost of what a CEO makes is small compared to the cost of doing business with so many employees where such increased costs will be shifted over to the consumers to pay for the difference. Goods and services will simply go up. It will have a multiplying effect on everybody, especially the poorer income group.
 
saywhatkid said:
You don't want to pay for my lack of employment? Very simple solution: quit working. My tax burden is nearly non-existent. Gives me lots of time for Facebook, AllDeaf, outdoor activities, you name it. Thanks for your donations to keep the roads clear of snow.
Click to expand...

A liberal wet dream.
 
kokonut said:
The CEO thing about Best Buy is a red herring when it comes to increased cost that will ultimately be passed on down to the consumers. Small stuff. Rather it is the increased cost of doing businesses alone that will get passed on down to consumers. The cost of what a CEO makes is small compared to the cost of doing business with so many employees where such increased costs will be shifted over to the consumers to pay for the difference. Goods and services will simply go up. It will have a multiplying effect on everybody, especially the poorer income group.
Click to expand...

Right. And we surely cannot expect them to share any of the pain, right? "Let the consumers deal with it, we need our 3 vacation homes" while the company lays a turd on the stockholders. You don't think that contributes anything, when these guys are getting a large enough bonus that they could hire 5000 workers at $20,000 each? Why worry about the poor; they are hardly the folks standing in line for those 60" LED TVs.
kokonut said:
A liberal wet dream.
Click to expand...

Not a dream. Most of us are fully awake. More like a nightmare for those that like to earn their keep, including me.
 
saywhatkid said:
Right. And we surely cannot expect them to share any of the pain, right? "Let the consumers deal with it, we need our 3 vacation homes" while the company lays a turd on the stockholders. You don't think that contributes anything, when these guys are getting a large enough bonus that they could hire 5000 workers at $20,000 each? Why worry about the poor; they are hardly the folks standing in line for those 60" LED TVs.

Not a dream. Most of us are fully awake. More like a nightmare for those that like to earn their keep, including me.
Click to expand...

A wet dream since you espoused such positive things about having a nearly non-existent tax burden, lots of time for Facebook, AllDeaf, outdoor activities, and other things. You held them up like a trophy. That's a definition of a liberal wet dream.
 
Back
Top