ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Justices signal possible trouble for Obamacare mandate

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Feb. 10 2013, 4:28 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 10 2013, 2:57 pm

>

>Again, I'll quote Ron Paul: "Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare." -darmokattanagra

>Ron Paul is also describing the game of corporatism whereby corporations compete for political favoritism. If negatively viewed by the public, a corporation will privately fund a bill, but publically refute it for marketing purposes. Corporations know that a majority fo uneducated people, who don't critically read legislative bills or pay attention to their authors, can be polarized into a given position and therefore be persuaded one way or another. So, let's say I hate Wal-Mart and oppose it at face value. Wal-Mart has a lobbyist write a legislative bill that grants Wal-Mart subsidies. Wal-Mart, knowing that I hate the company, decides to publically oppos's the bill, which I haven't read, to provoke me into favoring the bill, which ultimately grants Wal-Mart what it desires. This tactic frequently happens. Bankers and polticians used this tactic to create the Federal Reserve in 1913.  

>
What's sad is that Ron Paul was notorious for doing a similar tactic - he'd add amendments to make sure that a whole bunch of spending was done in his district on bills that would pass, and then vote against them so it looked like he was voting against spending.

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Feb. 10 2013, 5:08 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Feb. 09 2013, 2:09 pm

>

>Putting it in context doesn't help your argument.

>


I've memorized that chapter. I know the context. Here's what he's saying: get your priorities straight.


These verses, as much as you may wish they condemned Mitt Romney, are not ordering us to live in poverty. It is telling us to look to God first. He is the biggest priority. If you are consumed by your love of money, then you really need to get your priorities straight.


Somewhere in Matthew 16 (I don't remember the refrence, and i'm not going to find it now) it says: "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" This talks about it more.


Those verses don't mean "give everything up and live in poverty," they mean "follow God, not money." Money is not evil, living for money is.


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 10 2013, 5:18 pm

I disagree on your interpretation of Ron Paul's actions, BamBam. As a Representative, it's Ron Paul's job to represent his tax-paying district and petition for money that is stolen through taxation and inflation. Otherwise, it's money that's redistributed to other districts, other states even... people are entitled to the fruits of their labor. To not get the money back or even petition for it, means giving into slavery, as that district would be working for the benefit of others, as opposed to themselves. It's analygous to social security. I don't support social security. I pay into the system by virtue of the government taking automatically decucting the money out of my paycheck. Supposing social security is around (I know it won't be) when I'm eligable to receive the benefits, I'm going to take what the government gives me because I paid into the system... and because the government would be devaluing my savings by expanding the fiat supply. Cashing the check can't be interpreted as support for or an endorsement of the system. I would simply be trying to minimize for myself the damage of government theft, which is the real problem, and the contradictory position that was forced upon me.


The legislature has a duty to specify the allocations, as it Constitutionally has been delegated control over the purse. If the legislature fails to do so then it risks ceding more power to the executive branch, which would no doubt jump on the opportunity to allocate funding and gradually gain control of the purse. Regardless of if the Bill passes, he's still maintaing the Constitutional tradition of purse control. It's a catch 22. If he didn't put in for the earmarks, then he wouldn't be fulfilling his duty to his district and he'd be ceding the Legislature's job to the Executive Branch.

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Feb. 10 2013, 5:32 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 10 2013, 5:18 pm

>

>I disagree on your interpretation of Ron Paul's actions, BamBam. As a Representative, it's Ron Paul's job to represent his tax-paying district and petition for money that is stolen through taxation and inflation. Otherwise, it's money that's redistributed to other districts, other states even... people are entitled to the fruits of their labor. To not get the money back or even petition for it, means giving into slavery, as that district would be working for the benefit of others, as opposed to themselves. It's analygous to social security. I don't support social security. I pay into the system by virtue of the government taking automatically decucting the money out of my paycheck. Supposing social security is around (I know it won't be) when I'm eligable to receive the benefits, I'm going to take what the government gives me because I paid into the system... and because the government would be devaluing my savings by expanding the fiat supply. Cashing the check can't be interpreted as support for or an endorsement of the system. I would simply be trying to minimize for myself the damage of government theft, which is the real problem, and the contradictory position that was forced upon me.

>The legislature has a duty to specify the allocations, as it Constitutionally has been delegated control over the purse. If the legislature fails to do so then it risks ceding more power to the executive branch, which would no doubt jump on the opportunity to allocate funding and gradually gain control of the purse. Regardless of if the Bill passes, he's still maintaing the Constitutional tradition of purse control. It's a catch 22. If he didn't put in for the earmarks, then he wouldn't be fulfilling his duty to his district and he'd be ceding the Legislature's job to the Executive Branch.

>


I partially agree with you on that point. Right now, it's the thing to do. And not doing it because you don't believe in it isn't really helping anything. It will just get you voted out.


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Feb. 10 2013, 6:09 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 10 2013, 5:18 pm

>

>I disagree on your interpretation of Ron Paul's actions, BamBam. As a Representative, it's Ron Paul's job to represent his tax-paying district and petition for money that is stolen through taxation and inflation. Otherwise, it's money that's redistributed to other districts, other states even... people are entitled to the fruits of their labor. To not get the money back or even petition for it, means giving into slavery, as that district would be working for the benefit of others, as opposed to themselves. It's analygous to social security. I don't support social security. I pay into the system by virtue of the government taking automatically decucting the money out of my paycheck. Supposing social security is around (I know it won't be) when I'm eligable to receive the benefits, I'm going to take what the government gives me because I paid into the system... and because the government would be devaluing my savings by expanding the fiat supply. Cashing the check can't be interpreted as support for or an endorsement of the system. I would simply be trying to minimize for myself the damage of government theft, which is the real problem, and the contradictory position that was forced upon me.

>The legislature has a duty to specify the allocations, as it Constitutionally has been delegated control over the purse. If the legislature fails to do so then it risks ceding more power to the executive branch, which would no doubt jump on the opportunity to allocate funding and gradually gain control of the purse. Regardless of if the Bill passes, he's still maintaing the Constitutional tradition of purse control. It's a catch 22. If he didn't put in for the earmarks, then he wouldn't be fulfilling his duty to his district and he'd be ceding the Legislature's job to the Executive Branch.

>
I understand the logic of it, but if you look at the earmarks, you'll find that many of them don't line up to Paul's political views.  Just because he's trying to get money back that was stolen via taxation doesn't mean he should do it via adding earmarks and then voting against it just to look like he's voting a certain way.


 


To me, it's like adding a whole bunch of amendments that can't pass by themselves to the Defense bill because that always passes.

God in an Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 3:36 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 09 2013, 9:31 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 09 2013, 4:05 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:01 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 08 2013, 3:22 am

>

>

>

>Contraceptives and abortions are not against Christian values. Contraception simply did not exist at the time, and abortion, which is an issue which was more prevalent during the time of Christ, is never mentioned. The value of the life of an unborn child was specifically given a secondary role in the OT, and it was simply never mentioned during the NT; abortive measures were readily available during the time of Christ, yet He never even broached the subject. Those who oppose such measures follow the words of individuals who lived and died centuries after Jesus lived and died.
Do you speak for all Christians?  I know I don't.  Just because you don't think they're against some Christian's values doesn't mean that applies to all Christians.

Many Christians don't have problem with contraceptives, but most view abortion as murder.  Yes, there are someone that don't like contraceptives at all and some Christians say abortion is okay.

It's like some Christians think that drinking wine is a sin and some don't.

 

But.... the major point is that the goverment is saying that it can override religion, which is blatantly anti-Constitutional

But at the same time, you make statements like "Why does [Obama] continue to attack Christians?" I'm not seeing an attack, yet you word it as if you speak for all Christians.

 

I didn't say "all" Christians.  Obama says he's a Christian, so I doubt he's attacking himself.  But, if you take a look at the common beliefs of the majority of Christians, like abortion is murder, he's attacking them.

But let's just say that Obama was only attacking Catholics - would that be any less anti-Constitutional?  Of course not!


Remember - Christianity is a group of mulitiple denominations with conflicting views.  I've even heard of some "Christians" who disagree that Jesus is Christ (don't ask me the logic in that one...)  Even Obama believes in "collective salvation" - something nobody can find in the Bible.


Is it really an attack if the same regulations apply to all business owners, regardless of their faith and/or political beliefs?

God in an Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 3:43 am

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Feb. 09 2013, 2:09 pm

>

>Well... we know that anti-Christian group ... they purposefully take scripture out of context in any way they can in order to destoy us and make us their slaves.

>19 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.

>20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

>21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

>22 The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light.

>23 But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

>24 No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

>25 Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?

>26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?

>27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

>28 And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.

>29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.

>30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?

>31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’

>32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.

>33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

>34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

>Putting it in context doesn't help your argument.

>


The short version of all that is that money is not the end, merely a means to an end. A rich man using his money to further enrich himself, for the sole purpose of enriching himself, can indeed be considered a non-Christian. But a rich man using his wealth to benefit others (such as contributions to medical research and helping the homeless), so long as they do it for the sake of doing it, rather than benefits they may recieve as a result, are in line with Christian beliefs.


Keep in mind, there are those who help because the Bible says to help, and then there are those who help because it saves them money/makes them look good./etc.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 7:22 am

Is it really an attack if the same regulations apply to all business owners, regardless of their faith and/or political beliefs?


It is still an attack even if regulations apply across the board. For example, taxation is theft. Theft is wrong and is not made right simply by applying it to everyone. In any case, the wrongdoing has simply been maximized. 

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 7:52 am

I understand the logic of it, but if you look at the earmarks, you'll find that many of them don't line up to Paul's political views.  Just because he's trying to get money back that was stolen via taxation doesn't mean he should do it via adding earmarks and then voting against it just to look like he's voting a certain way.... To me, it's like adding a whole bunch of amendments that can't pass by themselves to the Defense bill because that always passes.


The earmarks don't have to line up with Ron Paul's political views, as not all the people he represents were likely to vote for him and share his views. He has the responsibility of representing individuals with different points of view from his own. Paul advocates private property. His constituency has had their property seized and are requesting the property be returned. What they do or what they want done with their property is their business, and Paul is sending their private property requests forward. Earmarking alone is not an endorsement. The endorsement is voting for the earmarks, which Paul doesn't do. 


 


Here's an example. One of my jobs is to wash gear. We have a place outside to specifically stow the dirty gear. Over the past 13 years, a specific system has developed to wash the gear in the most efficient manner possible. The owner, who has taken little interest in this aspect of his business and has almost no knowledge of it, has recently intervened to demand that we carry the dirty gear inside and stow it where we otherwise clean it. He's reduced out workspace and increased our workload. I oppose what he has done, because it's less efficient. I move the gear inside, because I believe in private property rights and the gear is his to do with as he pleases. I do not oppose his decision any less by carrying out his request, which is simply respecting his private property rights and doing my job. I oppose his decisions by bringing my objections to him, just as Ron Paul objects to the earmarks by voting "no".  


Another way of thinking about it... If Ron Paul had the deciding vote that determined the passage of the defense bill, and by extension its earmarks, do you think he would flip-flop and abandon his voting history? 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 12:35 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 11 2013, 7:52 am

>The earmarks don't have to line up with Ron Paul's political views, as not all the people he represents were likely to vote for him and share his views.
I was more talking about things being Constitutional spending, which he supposedly stands for.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 12:43 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 11 2013, 7:52 am

>Another way of thinking about it... If Ron Paul had the deciding vote that determined the passage of the defense bill, and by extension its earmarks, do you think he would flip-flop and abandon his voting history?
I don't know if "Dr. No" would or not, but if someone is against earmarks, why put them in (especially for things he rails against based on the Constitution?)  To me, it's duplicitous.  Thankfully, I'm not a politician - I don't have to say one thing and do the opposite.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46331

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 2:21 pm

Interesting..... We all knew that Obamacare would create a doctor shortage, but I didn't think it would be this fast...


http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-doctors-20130210,0,1509396.story


 


So California wants to let non-doctors do the doctor work?

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 9:43 pm

I was more talking about things being Constitutional spending, which he supposedly stands for.


...why put them in (especially for things he rails against based on the Constitution?)  To me, it's duplicitous.


Paul's district is requesting their property be returned and they can apply that property in any public manner permitted by their State Constitution.  Now, there are two different points of view involved. The first point of view is that of the Federal Government's, which you seem to be taking over the private property rights of individuals... that once the money is in the hands of the Federal Government, regardless of taxation being (albiet legalized) theft, it should be spent only on Constitutional Programs, as opposed to being returned to the people. But there are problems: first, it assumes the money belongs to the government when the reality is that it is stolen property; secondly, more money is being taken than is Constitutionally required. It would be great if the government returned the money directly to individuals or saved the money for next year's budget, but government deficits prove budgets (much less Constitutional government) to be a flight of fancy. So earmarks become the only way to return the money to the people. That's the duplicity of the system, not of the politiian who has inherited the system. Paul would be duplicit if he voted for the earmarks, but he doesn't. And unfortunately the majority of politicians are doing nothing to change the system by voting for bills, because of the earmarks contained within. 


Now the second point of view belongs to the individual, who's property has been stolen. They might want to apply their property in a given way... contribute it to a private program that is unconstitutional by government standards. But in the individual's mind, the government has their property and the individual is simply petitioning that the property be returned in a specific manner. It's unconstitutional only because the government is acting as the middle man. The solution is to extract government and make it smaller. But the government is not going to be made smaller by abandoning the property to a slush fund for the executive branch to exploit.


Ron Paul is putting those earmarks in because he's looking at the situation from the individual's point of view, not the collectivist point of view of a government that has grown unconstitutional. If we end the enumerated power of taxation, we stop the systemic problems, like moral hazard and duplicity, that follow from theft.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 11 2013, 9:45 pm

Interesting..... We all knew that Obamacare would create a doctor shortage, but I didn't think it would be this fast...


http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-doctors-20130210,0,1509396.story


So California wants to let non-doctors do the doctor work?


 


Don't you know, Bam, that's Obama's job creation plan -  to eventually turn everybody into their own doctor! 

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Feb. 12 2013, 9:39 am

Lone Palm -  If the politicians did not offer the service of political favoritism, the corporations wouldn't be able to buy favoritism and influence legislative policy in the manners currently done.

As a capitalist, how do you justify restricting politicians from offering a service or corporations from purchasing that service?

Sehlat - These verses, as much as you may wish they condemned Mitt Romney, are not ordering us to live in poverty. It is telling us to look to God first. He is the biggest priority. If you are consumed by your love of money, then you really need to get your priorities straight.

First of all, I didn't say anything about Mitt Romney. Second, I agree with your interpretation of those verses. Third, see below.

Alcove -  A rich man using his money to further enrich himself, for the sole purpose of enriching himself, can indeed be considered a non-Christian. But a rich man using his wealth to benefit others (such as contributions to medical research and helping the homeless), so long as they do it for the sake of doing it, rather than benefits they may recieve as a result, are in line with Christian beliefs.

I'm not denying some rich people do good things with their money simply for the sake of doing them, I'm just saying that if they didn't embrace and glorify Mammon (greed) then they would never be rich in the first place. Christian or not, I don't believe anyone's motivations for getting rich are as noble as you suggest.

Post Reply

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum