What happens if the Supreme Court strikes down 'Obamacare'?

[rolling7]

then we should abolish our social welfare programs.

Nope, the correct statement is that we should abolish GOVERNMENT social welfare.
Social welfare has been and always will be the responsibility of society.

There are many outlets, I.e. charity, church, benefactors, etc. and the government can not match them for oversight.

 

[Foxrac]

Nope, the correct statement is that we should abolish GOVERNMENT social welfare.
Social welfare has been and always will be the responsibility of society.

There are many outlets, I.e. charity, church, benefactors, etc. and the government can not match them for oversight.

It is obviously that most of social welfare are funded by government, that why Jiro just simply stated it and you just playing with his words.

Church? lol. Charity? lol. Not all charities can help with people, just not enough.

 

[rolling7]

It is obviously that most of social welfare are funded by government, that why Jiro just simply stated it and you just playing with his words.

Church? lol. Charity? lol. Not all charities can help with people, just not enough.

Nope, I'm well aware that all most all of todays social programs are government controlled. That is why I was not playing on words. What you don't understand is that people stay years and years and years on the government programs but those that are non-government have oversight and help people to get back on their feet and remove themself from the program. I'm also well aware that there are fewer non-government outlets today due to the apathy of people thinking "let the government handle it". Many years ago when there were many non-government outlets many, many people became involved and contributed help.

Which would you rather participate in? a) a government run program that has no accountability, no oversight, no time limit nor any restrictions.........or....b) a non-government run program that does have restrictions, that does have oversight, that does require you to pull yourself up and get out of the program and be accountable to yourself.

The easy way, and most people take the easy way, is (a) but the most beneficial to society and to the person is (b).

 

[Foxrac]

Nope, I'm well aware that all most all of todays social programs are government controlled. That is why I was not playing on words. What you don't understand is that people stay years and years and years on the government programs but those that are non-government have oversight and help people to get back on their feet and remove themself from the program. I'm also well aware that there are fewer non-government outlets today due to the apathy of people thinking "let the government handle it". Many years ago when there were many non-government outlets many, many people became involved and contributed help.

Which would you rather participate in? a) a government run program that has no accountability, no oversight, no time limit nor any restrictions.........or....b) a non-government run program that does have restrictions, that does have oversight, that does require you to pull yourself up and get out of the program and be accountable to yourself.

The easy way, and most people take the easy way, is (a) but the most beneficial to society and to the person is (b).

My answer will be A - in bold.

However, if you making too much income after get a better job so you will kick out of food stamp, Medicaid and other welfare.

 

[rolling7]

My answer will be A - in bold.

However, if you making too much income after get a better job so you will kick out of food stamp, Medicaid and other welfare.

See where you took the easy way and those, who like you take the easy way, will never be beneficial citizens.

 

[kokonut]

You have two incentives for those who are able bodied, work on your own and the opportunity to advance yourself and make more money, or receive welfare support that limits your outlook.

Getting off welfare should be designed to allow others to gradually wean from it but it has a trapping that if you take a job with a certain number of hours, you could lose your welfare support.

 

[Grayma]

then we should abolish our social welfare programs.

So you believe social welfare is unconstitutional?

What purpose do you believe the Constitution serves?

 

[Jiro]

So you believe social welfare is unconstitutional?

What purpose do you believe the Constitution serves?

I didn't say that. You did.

Am I correct?

 

[rolling7]

I didn't say that. You did.

Am I correct?

Grayma did not say you did said that but only ask you two questions.

Are you going to answer the two? Because I would really like to read your viewpoint.

 

[Jiro]

Grayma did not say you did said that but only ask you two questions.

Are you going to answer the two? Because I would really like to read your viewpoint.

why don't you sit down and wait until we finish talking? it's impolite to interrupt.

 

[kokonut]

Hmm...interesting. This is what The Drudge Report said:

"DID HE GET A LEAK? Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare..."
Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare | Reuters

If it were a leak then probably Kagan might be the responsible one but I'd rather give the Justices the benefit of the doubt that they don't do that kind of thing.

 

[Foxrac]

See where you took the easy way and those, who like you take the easy way, will never be beneficial citizens.

Excuse me, your post is fuckin nonsense and I'm still beneficial citizen, regardless on what's going with my life.

 

[Foxrac]

You have two incentives for those who are able bodied, work on your own and the opportunity to advance yourself and make more money, or receive welfare support that limits your outlook.

Getting off welfare should be designed to allow others to gradually wean from it but it has a trapping that if you take a job with a certain number of hours, you could lose your welfare support.

Come on, you don't know about what I am doing and you placed some members, including me on your ignore list. Your assumption based on me is false.

 

[Foxrac]

So you believe social welfare is unconstitutional?

What purpose do you believe the Constitution serves?

Based on your view that you believe about government authority, it means mandatory seat belt law is unconstitutional, and other example - require to have car insurance in state is unconstitutional.

 

[rolling7]

Based on your view that you believe about government authority, it means mandatory seat belt law is unconstitutional, and other example - require to have car insurance in state is unconstitutional.

Nope, you need to do your homework.

There is no such USA government law.

The states, through their own voters, pass STATE laws on seat belts and car insurance.

But I won't be surprised if Obama wants to get Congress to pass a law for government-controlled auto insurance.

 

[Grayma]

I didn't say that. You did.

Am I correct?

No, what I said was this:

I am a woman, and even if I trusted those graphics to be neutrally sourced, unbiased, accurate depictions (and I don't)- it would not matter to me. What I care about is whether or not the laws passed in this country are Constitutional.

If this is seen as Constitutional, then we have lost all limits on government authority, and that is far worse than paying for your own birth control.

You said then all social welfare programs should be abolished.

I find that an interesting response, and would like to know why you think that? You are the one who went there. Are you saying that the welfare programs are not constitutional? What purpose do you think the Constitution serves? I am genuinely interested in your answer.

In spite of how things may appear, I like you and I am glad you are here.

 

[Foxrac]

Nope, you need to do your homework.

There is no such USA government law.

The states, through their own voters, pass STATE laws on seat belts and car insurance.

But I won't be surprised if Obama wants to get Congress to pass a law for government-controlled auto insurance.

In bold - OMG...

You are wrong.

Almost all seat belt law passed by state legislative, same goes with car insurance as well.

There are many federal laws, as well, especially required car parts to be standard like seat belt, traction control, airbag, etc.

Again, I'm not goddamn talking to you but just directly to Grayma.

 

[Grayma]

Hmm...interesting. This is what The Drudge Report said:

"DID HE GET A LEAK? Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare..."
Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare | Reuters

If it were a leak then probably Kagan might be the responsible one but I'd rather give the Justices the benefit of the doubt that they don't do that kind of thing.

I would think it more likely, if there really is a leak, that it would be a clerk or somebody like that rather than a justice.

 

[Grayma]

In bold - OMG...

You are wrong.

Almost all seat belt law passed by state legislative, same goes with car insurance as well.

There are many federal laws, as well, especially required car parts to be standard like seat belt, traction control, airbag, etc.

Again, I'm not ******* talking to you but just directly to Grayma.

Expletive deleted because it makes me flinch.

Can you show me where in the Constitution the government has the authority to mandate that people wear seatbelts (or motorcycle helmets, for that matter)?

I do believe it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate seatbelts.

Incidentally, there is a legal difference between laws and regulations. It's kind of one of the distinctions without a difference issues to me, but legally it does matter.

I would guess federal mandates about car manufacturing would be regulatory rather than legislative.

Did I answer your question? I'm not 100% sure what you were asking me, so if I didn't, please ask again (only, please, without expletives?).

Here is a more general question for anybody to answer: Have you read the Constitution (if you're an American)?

 

[Foxrac]

Expletive deleted because it makes me flinch.

Can you show me where in the Constitution the government has the authority to mandate that people wear seatbelts (or motorcycle helmets, for that matter)?

I do believe it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate seatbelts.

Incidentally, there is a legal difference between laws and regulations. It's kind of one of the distinctions without a difference issues to me, but legally it does matter.

I would guess federal mandates about car manufacturing would be regulatory rather than legislative.

Did I answer your question? I'm not 100% sure what you were asking me, so if I didn't, please ask again (only, please, without expletives?).

Here is a more general question for anybody to answer: Have you read the Constitution (if you're an American)?

I'm just followed based on your views about constitution that limits government authority so I have no idea about whichever constitution will be, especially based on your view.

We do have federal tax on gas - you think it is unconstitutional?

We have federal mandate on education - known as NCLB, you think it is unconstitutional?

I believe that federal mandate is constitutional because I don't find any constitution that restrict federal authority to mandate.