imaxkr

and that the "taxes" will only apply to those who do not buy insurance so that we can insure those who do not have insurance?

Now the numbers of uninsured is somewhere around 30 million people and as we have been told the legislation (PPACA) is to insure those who cannot afford insurance. The question is how many of those "uninsured" are uninsured by choice and will be taxed and how many will receive subsidized care?

If only 10% of the uninsured are there by choice then the burden of the taxes would fall on them, at least that is the current defense that you will not be taxed if you already buy insurance. Considering the latest CBO cost estimate has the PPACA costing $1.87trillion over ten years or $187billion a year and the costs will be on those who do not buy insurance (around 3 million people) that would come out to about $62,000 each.

So we can see that the cost burden will go well beyond those who choose not to buy insurance but can afford to do so.

Where are those costs going to fall?

for the progressive liberal movement?

The majority opinion rejects the federal government’s power to regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. It then goes on to reject a broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause. The opinion also imposes new limits on the federal government’s ability to force the states to adopt federal programs, striking down the condition that Congress can withdraw all medicaid funding if a state refuses to go along with the medicaid expansion. These sections of the opinion are all about about the need to narrow Congress’s power, and they impose new limits on federal power that have not been seen before.

Since the Court concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the reconciliation procedure, now only 51 votes are needed in the Senate for repeal. (four additional seat for the Republicans is all that is needed)

Additionally it now allows the American people to have the final say at the polls this November.

the Supreme Court because they want their next piece of signature legislation, PTAMA to be passed?

The Peoples Transportation and Affordable Movement Act (PTAMA) also known as Obamacar

is the next piece of signature legislation for this administration.

Even though a majority of the people is against the legislation its supporters say that it will bend the cost curve of rising costs of transportation and insure adequate transportation for everyone.

At the heart of the legislation is the mandate that everyone will buy transportation at the federally determined levels or face a fine thus insuring the needed funds to transport everyone. The minimum level has been determined to be a fully electric vehicle. The law also allows you to keep your current transportation ( gas powered vehicle, biking, walking) but if that transportation does not meet the minimum level you will pay the fine.

The supporters of the legislation point to the fact that everyone will need transportation at some point in their life and that failing to purchase the minimum level of transportation shifts the costs on a smaller pool of people increasing the costs for everyone.

The government’s position is that even walking or biking is participating in transportation and that participation has a material affect on interstate commerce in the transportation market which the Constitution clearly gives them the power to regulate. The government also states that the legislation is for the general welfare of the people.

They say that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to institute this legislation under the commerce clause, United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) and the Necessary and Proper Clause United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18).

Government lawyers have stated that they are not concerned with the legal challenges the legislation faces since legal precedent exists in recent Supreme Court rulings,

State of Florida, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al (11-400).

National Federation of Independent Business, et al., v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. (11-393)

When will it end if the Supreme Court doesn't protect the people against the governments overreach?

was recently passed by Congress and is the next piece of signature legislation for this administration.

Even though a majority of the people is against the legislation its supporters say that it will bend the cost curve of rising costs of transportation and insure adequate transportation for everyone.

At the heart of the legislation is the mandate that everyone will buy transportation at the federally determined levels or face a fine thus insuring the needed funds to transport everyone. The minimum level has been determined to be a fully electric vehicle. The law also allows you to keep your current transportation ( gas powered vehicle, biking, walking) but if that transportation does not meet the minimum level you will pay the fine.

Opponents of the legislation say the legislation is an overreach of federal government power and that it should be struck down as unconstitutional. That since they do not use motor vehicular transportation and only walk or bike they have no need or desire to purchase an electric powered car.

The supporters of the legislation point to the fact that everyone will need transportation at some point in their life and that failing to purchase the minimum level of transportation shifts the costs on a smaller pool of people increasing the costs for everyone.

The government’s position is that even walking or biking is participating in transportation and that participation has a material affect on interstate commerce in the transportation market which the Constitution clearly gives them the power to regulate. The government also states that the legislation is for the general welfare of the people. They say that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to institute this legislation under the commerce clause, United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) and the Necessary and Proper Clause United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18).

Government lawyers have stated that they are not concerned with the legal challenges the legislation faces since legal precedent exists in recent Supreme Court rulings,

State of Florida, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al (11-400).

National Federation of Independent Business, et al., v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. (11-393)

If you currently support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) also know as Obamacare and the governments power to enact and enforce that legislation then will you fully support the above legislation?

Why or why not?

Do you not find it appalling that the Justice department is silent on the NBBP issuing a bounty for the capture of a private citizen? The unlawful detention of one citizen by another is considered kidnapping and offering a "bounty" could very well be considered conspiracy to commit kidnapping.

What do you think the reaction would be if say the kkk offered up a bounty? Wouldn't there be a public outcry? Or would Sharpton and Jackson remain silent? Does one perceived injustice allow further injustices to go without punishment?

Don't all those demanding his arrest feel foolish?

It is not uncommon at all for someone to be arrested than later released.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-zimmerman-po...

would you still support it since now, according to the CBO's most recent scoring, it INCREASES the cost of care by $657 billion over ten years instead of decreasing them by $143 billion?

Remember, the CBO's figures were held as gospel during the debate leading up to the laws "passage in the Congress.

The original cost analysis placed the cost of the PPACA at about $980 billion which would reduce costs by $143 billion. The most recent scoring places the costs at $1.78 billion which leads to a overall cost increase of $657 billion. The costs are sure to increase even further when full implementation takes place in two years and the most accurate analysis of the true costs can be made.

Isn't this exactly what the opponents of the legislation have been saying all along?

Does the government plan on borrowing an additional trillion dollars above and beyond the already trillion dollar deficit estimates by the administration?

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21350

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22077

"But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending."

Or is this some nonsense from some crackpot conservative or Republican?

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconom...

"Mental disorders have become Europe's largest health challenge of the 21st century."

"At the same time, some big drug companies are backing away from investment in research on how the brain works and affects behavior, putting the onus on governments to stump up funding for neuroscience."

"With only about a third of cases receiving the therapy or medication needed."

"Those few receiving treatment do so with considerable delays of an average of several years and rarely with the appropriate, state-of-the-art therapies."

Is this the success of government controlled health care the United States has to look forward to is the PPACA is allowed to stand?

http://news.yahoo.com/nearly-40-pct-europeans-suff...

Isn't that quite telling of how out of touch the administration is?

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-25/politics/senate...

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's budget at least garnered 40 Yea votes.

When will these righties ever stop trying to destroy the unions.

http://www.wgnradio.com/news/local/breaking/chi-em...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-29/news...

Oops, sorry this time it's the progressive leftist Mayor of Chicago and former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

When will these righties ever stop trying to destroy the unions.

http://www.wgnradio.com/news/local/breaking/chi-em...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-29/news...

Oops, sorry this time it's the progressive leftist Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel

coffers?

The highest tax rate pre- 2001 was 39.1%, in 2011 it is 35%. So an increase back to 2001 levels might bring in an additional 12% in revenues from the "rich". Looking at IRS data from 2009 that would be a whopping $50 billion in supposed additional revenue. That is a long way from reducing a $1.6 Trillion deficit.

Some other interesting data, there we slightly more than 3.9 million returns with incomes over $200k and that if those returns were taxed 100% it would still not be enough to cover current deficits.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,...

saving about $100 million in costs.

What effect will this / could this have on future primaries?

Being so late in the primary season does this bring more attention to the state or make their vote more irrelevant as candidates could have the nominations wrapped up by then?

an immediate vote on Harry Reid's Bill and Harry Reid refuses!!

He wants the cloture vote waived on his legislation thus avoiding a filibuster. All this after he filibustered the two Bills that have already passed the House.

Is this the typical Modus operandi of the Democrats, one set of rules for them one for everyone else?

Is this the same Harry Reid that ridiculed and bashed the Republicans in the Senate for using the filibuster during the PPACA?

In Washington?

Will you be happy with the "kick the can down the road" legislation that WILL be the result?

Will you be happy when the realization sets in that all this debate about "cuts" really just reduces projected increases and does not cut any spending at all?

Will you be happy to find out that deficits will continue, federal debt will continue to grow and will eclipse $20 TRILLION within six years, even after the compromise legislation is reached.

Will you be happy to know you, no matter what side your on, have been played the fool and the end result doesn't really change anything?

Or is it just a matter of your "side" comes out "looking" better than the other even though the country will be worse off because of it?

We can all point fingers, saying falsehoods like "they're holding the economy hostage", " if we 'default' it is their fault" and so on, but the harsh reality is WE the people are to blame.

Yes everyone of us, you, me, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, Independent, all of us. Until we realize that the greatest threat we face as a nation is our debt, not terrorism, not immigration, not anything else.

Without getting the debt under control by eliminating deficit spending we become more and more restricted in what we can do. Soon we will no longer have the ability to choose what we spend the money on, we will be forced by fiscal conditions to eliminate and reduce the very programs we think we are currently protecting.

Never have so many people, from both sides of the debate, argued so strongly for their very own down fall.

Is that the White House's way of saying our plan is so bad we don't want it to be torn apart (politically charged) in public and make the administration look bad? We want the other guys to present their plans so we can make them look worse than us?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272768/carney...

around minute 9:00

A philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

A- Liberal

B- Conservative

C- Progressive

D- Marxist

E- Classical Liberal

And why did you come to that conclusion?

has been the need to get the "economy out of a ditch". Now, when the those opposed to the administration policies point out how they were not effective the administrations supporters claim that the administration saved the economy and point to anemic economic indicators as "proof". The current administration has increased federal spending 28% in less than three years.

The question is, if the administration did turn the economy around as claimed why do they still insist on the elevated spending levels?

Why not return to pre-recession spending levels plus normal growth spending of about 3% a year instead of locking in spending that according to those supporters should no longer be needed?