273 posts
does Walmart paying $8b in income tax alter that $6.2b argument? you're using income before taxes right? why so? (honest question, I'm curious)
No, it doesn't. Companies paying taxes are not therefore exempt from paying their workers enough to get by, unless we want to change the definition and create a tax repository wherein Walmart's tax moneys get automatically redistributed. Profit is always figured before taxes--when I tell people my yearly salary, I tell them my salary, not my after-tax salary. You are only taxed on profit... so if they paid their employees more, and had less profit, their taxes would be lower.
Put another way, the companies that pay the next highest and lowest in taxes above and below WalMart (JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs) pay roughly the same amount in tax as WalMart's 7.1 billion. How many Chase and Sachs employees do you think are on welfare, as a percentage of the company?
ok, I see where you're coming from now, thanks for the further explanation!
There's of course the argument that we do pay, particularly for those banks... Chase and Goldman Sachs probably received many billions in 2007-2008 from us, to keep them from failing. The part that no one talks about now, though, is how amazingly well the US did on that investment in the bailout- we paid out 611.4 billion in funds, and were returned, as of this date, 653.1 billion... making TARP a $41.7 billion money earner for the country.
You can math that one out too... say we give Walmart 6.2 billion a year in subsidies because they don't pay their workers enough, and in return they give us 7.1 billion in tax revenue. (regardless of the fact that Morgan, Chase, et al returned 41.7 billion to us in profit AND paid the same amount in taxes as WalMart...)
7.1 billion in income -
6.2 billion in federal subsidies =
900,000,000 in income tax net from WalMart.
41.7 / .9 =
46.3 years for WalMart to make us as much from their tax/benefits income stream, vs 6 years to do it by investing in banks...
Just an exercise and really, not worthwhile, as from the banks we get tax revenue on top of the bailout cash we've made. But just a comparison...
In the end, we get one thing and one thing only from WalMart- a reduction in the unemployment numbers. They employee almost as many people as the federal government. Sure, the numbers are cooked, we don't count underemployment or the fact that it costs us money to have those people employed, that they are essentially part-time federal employees. But it sure looks nice to be at 6.1% unemploment vs the 10% of October 09.
yeah, I'm not sure I could happily accept the TARP outcome as a net positive even though it does add up that way... as crazy as I know it seems, bankruptcy would have been better in my opinion. I don't expect anyone to agree with that... just saying, those firms are a cancer on this country and we should have let them die.
As I understand it, I think your initial argument was valid. essentially that Walmart's tax payment should have been 14.2 billion to cover the cost to the taxpayer of subsidizing their employees. ironically, or perhaps just interestingly... or maybe suspiciously (heh), that 6.2 billion is about what they pay out in dividends. (~$2/sh on 3.2b shares)
[quote author=charger link=1404776484/25#46 date=1405363703][quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/25#40 date=1405144775][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1404776484/25#38 date=1405119574][quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/25#36 date=1405113652][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1404776484/25#28 date=1405047537]HAHAHAHHHAHAHA!!!
WALLLY!!!! WALLLY!!! WALLLY!!!
oh boy
charger — Jul 14, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/25#45 date=1405355846]Here is one reason I don't have a problem with Walmart posting large profits.
http://www.celebuzz.com/2014-07-12/tracy-morgan-has-sued-walmart-over-fatal-car-accident/
So, you can bank money to fend off shit loads of lawsuits, lagit and not, or you can go out of business when one of these lawsuits stick. What do you want? Slips and falls are a huge, if not the biggest, risk for lawsuit in these type chains. They happen all the time. Not to mention the few times that a shopping cart hits a car and Walmart is help liable. These are just a few potential risks that Walmart faces everyday. Most of these chains are self insured, are they use to be.
Nothing is black and white. I think people should look at the big picture, not just the snap shots you don't like. People see the profit statements and think the company is the enemy. People don't see the huge number of people Walmart employs, or the benefits, like health insurance, that they provide. Again, no one is forced to work at Walmart. No one has to check out groceries at a register all their life and make min wage. If they work hard and learn their job, they can move up in the company and salary.
So until we have all the data to support the notion that Walmart makes to much profits, I'll have to side with Walmart. To make them do a bunch of shit that will effect their business, based on 1 sentence of data, just isn't fair or logical, reasonable, etc.
What makes you think Walmart provides benefits? They're notorious for employing people right around 30 hours a week, to prevent having to pay benefits. If anyone's paying them benefits now, it's thanks to Obama and Obamacare. And you and I are paying for those benefits. Because they are subsidized. Because 80% of Walmart employees have to rely on federal subsidies to survive. You're totally defending a company whose practices, unless you believe in a massive welfare state, are the largest part of the problem.
Put another way--they make $25 billion a year. We pay 6.2 billion in benefits to their workers. We therefore may as well be paying $6.2 billion straight to Walmart... so they can make 25 billion instead of 18.8 billion. Keep cheering.
I meant the full time employees. But the part time employes, at least when I worked for grocery stores, could get a discount rate after so many years. And by the way, That 30 hour trick you say Walmart does, Winn Dixie grocery stores, Albertsons, grocery stores, and even the union-ized Kroger stores, I know for sure, did the same thing in the 80"s. Thats not new. Nor is it shocking to me. I've read the P&L statements at individual WD stores, and it ain't that much considering the amount of labor it takes to run a good grocery store. And the investment and risk associated with it.
I don't know where your getting your info from, I'm just gonna trust you know what your talking about, but if your figures are close, and I'm sure you've researched this, I'll just stand corrected. Your last point, example, was brilliantly put in such a simple form. ;) :)
charger — Jul 14, 2014There's of course the argument that we do pay, particularly for those banks... Chase and Goldman Sachs probably received many billions in 2007-2008 from us, to keep them from failing. The part that no one talks about now, though, is how amazingly well the US did on that investment in the bailout- we paid out 611.4 billion in funds, and were returned, as of this date, 653.1 billion... making TARP a $41.7 billion money earner for the country.
You can math that one out too... say we give Walmart 6.2 billion a year in subsidies because they don't pay their workers enough, and in return they give us 7.1 billion in tax revenue. (regardless of the fact that Morgan, Chase, et al returned 41.7 billion to us in profit AND paid the same amount in taxes as WalMart...)
7.1 billion in income -
6.2 billion in federal subsidies =
900,000,000 in income tax net from WalMart.
41.7 / .9 =
46.3 years for WalMart to make us as much from their tax/benefits income stream, vs 6 years to do it by investing in banks...
Just an exercise and really, not worthwhile, as from the banks we get tax revenue on top of the bailout cash we've made. But just a comparison...
In the end, we get one thing and one thing only from WalMart- a reduction in the unemployment numbers. They employee almost as many people as the federal government. Sure, the numbers are cooked, we don't count underemployment or the fact that it costs us money to have those people employed, that they are essentially part-time federal employees. But it sure looks nice to be at 6.1% unemploment vs the 10% of October 09.
Problem here is this.
John can't find a full time job. John takes a part time job working 17 hours a week and bitches the rest of the week, while receiving said benefits, when he could have found a second part time job, or 3rd even. Whatever it takes. I was a assistant MGR full time, and after my 1st divorce, started running a c-store for a lady for 2.5 years. I had to do what it took to make it. I had no life for a while but eventually, I worked my way back to having 1 full time job. I had a truck and $2000 bucks and my clothes after that one. ;D My Dad always reminds me when I'm bitching about this divorce of the shack shithole trailer, possum's in the duct work, crap bag I lived in then. Yeah, it was way off. ;D
Yes, I see that, you were super motivated, worked multiple jobs, and made it work. You're driven, and you've risen above... But just remember, it's dangerous to generalize. What you were able to do is not what everyone is able to do. I know not everyone can get a job in tech. My work is easy compared to retail work, or field work, or manual labor. For me. Not for everyone.
The fact is, not everyone can do what I can do, or what you can do. Not everyone has technical skills, the ability to get through interviews, the perseverance to make something happen, and the ability to work extended hours, multiple jobs, etc. I may as well say, I make a six figure income, sitting behind a keyboard, why doesn't everyone just do what I do?
And, the most important point is, our system won't allow it anyway. We live in a country where the second largest employer is WalMart. As an aggregate, 23% of the employed work in retail, wholesale, or service/hospitality. No matter how many people can rise above, those people will always be down there, because someone needs to to those jobs. Maybe there will be less of them over time, but almost 1/4 of the country does them now. Those people aren't going to go away. If we paid them more, those people would contribute more to the economy, and more to society. It seems like a win-win to me.
This guy was on Diane Rehm yesterday, a pretty good listen.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2014-07-15/conversation-nick-hanauer-reducing-income-inequality
"Inequality" is a real stumbling block term that doesn't exactly fit the argument. Equality is not what's sought...
charger — Jul 16, 2014Yes, I see that, you were super motivated, worked multiple jobs, and made it work. You're driven, and you've risen above... But just remember, it's dangerous to generalize. What you were able to do is not what everyone is able to do. I know not everyone can get a job in tech. My work is easy compared to retail work, or field work, or manual labor. For me. Not for everyone.
The fact is, not everyone can do what I can do, or what you can do. Not everyone has technical skills, the ability to get through interviews, the perseverance to make something happen, and the ability to work extended hours, multiple jobs, etc. I may as well say, I make a six figure income, sitting behind a keyboard, why doesn't everyone just do what I do?
And, the most important point is, our system won't allow it anyway. We live in a country where the second largest employer is WalMart. As an aggregate, 23% of the employed work in retail, wholesale, or service/hospitality. No matter how many people can rise above, those people will always be down there, because someone needs to to those jobs. Maybe there will be less of them over time, but almost 1/4 of the country does them now. Those people aren't going to go away. If we paid them more, those people would contribute more to the economy, and more to society. It seems like a win-win to me.
This guy was on Diane Rehm yesterday, a pretty good listen.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2014-07-15/conversation-nick-hanauer-reducing-income-inequality
Absolutely, sounds great and probably/maybe it would be. I get what your saying. If something happened in my life now that would require me to obtain another job, I couldn't. I travel on the road all week, most of the time. So, I'm a good example, kinda, of someone who would be really challenged to pull that off.
I think one other problem we have that is serious imo, is motivation. How do we motivate the people that are relatively healthy, to have the desire to better themselves? Thats kinda drawn me back to my earlier point that we need to educate people, teach them to set goals. I don't mean educate in a limited sense either. I would extend that to, especially, teach people how to handle money. Because if you are being taught skills you've set goals and, short med and long term goals, the achievers will benefit greatly now and the future, and even the people that don't find success right away will have it easier on the same budget if they understood how to handle what they have.
And think about this. If the person doesn't know what it takes to get a job and he is rejected from 5 different attempt, he's tired of walking 12 miles one way with no positive results...... so, boom, that's where the teaching needs to kick in. Instead of saying fuck it, I'll sell some drugs or whatever, he moves to step 2 and knows what to do, step 3 if that doesn't work. I think that as long as a person has goals, something to reach for or 8 more alternatives to try if this one fails kinda stuff, for some is like throwing gas on a fire, motivation kicks in and their off.
I'll check out you link or whatever a little later. Hope i didn't step in it by my post. :)
charger — Jul 14, 2014There's of course the argument that we do pay, particularly for those banks... Chase and Goldman Sachs probably received many billions in 2007-2008 from us, to keep them from failing. The part that no one talks about now, though, is how amazingly well the US did on that investment in the bailout- we paid out 611.4 billion in funds, and were returned, as of this date, 653.1 billion... making TARP a $41.7 billion money earner for the country.
You can math that one out too... say we give Walmart 6.2 billion a year in subsidies because they don't pay their workers enough, and in return they give us 7.1 billion in tax revenue. (regardless of the fact that Morgan, Chase, et al returned 41.7 billion to us in profit AND paid the same amount in taxes as WalMart...)
7.1 billion in income -
6.2 billion in federal subsidies =
900,000,000 in income tax net from WalMart.
41.7 / .9 =
46.3 years for WalMart to make us as much from their tax/benefits income stream, vs 6 years to do it by investing in banks...
Just an exercise and really, not worthwhile, as from the banks we get tax revenue on top of the bailout cash we've made. But just a comparison...
In the end, we get one thing and one thing only from WalMart- a reduction in the unemployment numbers. They employee almost as many people as the federal government. Sure, the numbers are cooked, we don't count underemployment or the fact that it costs us money to have those people employed, that they are essentially part-time federal employees. But it sure looks nice to be at 6.1% unemploment vs the 10% of October 09.
Yeah, as of now we made some money. But I can see a argument to let some of these businesses die, like GM.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/24/us-gm-recall-lawsuit-idUSBREA2N19O20140324
Can we not see GM go away already. Why, why do we keep bailing out a failure? Jobs, horseshit. Give 50% to Tesla and the rest to other small car and energy companies. Tesla is bad ass right now. Just think if they had money, GM's facilities.... shit, we'd have this cars needing gas thing solved in no time. Whether the government wanted it to happen or not. ;D And the same or even more employment from Tesla than GM ever thought about. It could happen. Look at GM's stock right now and compare that to little ole Tesla. If I had a pot full of money, I'd get me some of that stock, even as high as it is now, I'd get it anyway.
Dint Tesla get half a billion bailout from the Gov?
I love Teslas, don't get me wrong, and they are made right here in the silicon valley. But unfortunately, they don't make cars that are affordable for most people yet. The Model S, which is an absolutely killer car, is 61K with the smaller battery and reduced feature set. GM makes cars people can afford. And yeah, GM had some recalls and is being sued for an ignition-related death. Remember though, a couple years ago, that was Toyota with the recalls and the lawsuits... and Toyota is currently the number one selling car in the world. We made money on the GM bailout, and we saved American jobs. Whether that was worth doing in hindsight, or philosophically, or politically, I can't say. If you were president, maybe you'd let industries and banks fail. I doubt most presidents would.
BINGEWOOD — Jul 17, 2014Getting closer:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/35000-dollar-tesla-model-3-coming-in-2017-popmech-synd
Yeah, 2017 can't come soon enough. I see those Model S's all over the place and have quite a bit of Tesla envy.
charger — Jul 17, 2014I love Teslas, don't get me wrong, and they are made right here in the silicon valley. But unfortunately, they don't make cars that are affordable for most people yet. The Model S, which is an absolutely killer car, is 61K with the smaller battery and reduced feature set. GM makes cars people can afford. And yeah, GM had some recalls and is being sued for an ignition-related death. Remember though, a couple years ago, that was Toyota with the recalls and the lawsuits... and Toyota is currently the number one selling car in the world. We made money on the GM bailout, and we saved American jobs. Whether that was worth doing in hindsight, or philosophically, or politically, I can't say. If you were president, maybe you'd let industries and banks fail. I doubt most presidents would.
Not sure. It would require a lot of thought. In general, I do not think our tax money should be spent in a way that allows government to cherry pick which businesses succeed or fail in hard or bad times. And, if the government made money on tax payer money, that should be reflected in tax credits on the profit without question. kinda pisses me off that government uses our money to invest with. Basically gambling with our hard earned money and when they profit, well, I guess they spend it. I understand the desire to save jobs, but as harsh as this sounds, it's just no excuse, imo.
IMO, it's real close to time for Americans to get our government in check. It's way out of control, imo. They spend way to much money, it's basically corrupted..... out military is scattered all over the world almost, we stick our heads in every countries business, our boarders are a flood gates to basically higher taxes and unemployed people with no healthcare.... list goes on and on. Our constitution really doesn't mean much anymore, it's ignored. Fucking President flies around in a vehicle that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a day to operate doing fund raising. We just let government piss money away year after year. And the amount they piss away continues to grow. I'm talking dems and pubs, all of em.
I really need to quit watching the news, any of it. I get pissed damn near every time I see it. I saw where a lady sent a letter to the president with poison in it and threats, and she got like 18 years prison time. So, why? Why doesn't she get the damn chair? That was out President. I'll shut up. ;D
We don't need car companies making vehicles that are unsafe. Shut down GM and send the Toyota's back to Japan or wherever. That would help our economy maybe. ;D (I know that made no sense)
http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2014/01/americas_top_20_best-selling_v.html
Look, we bail out GM and Dodge what, at least once every 10 or 15 years? Let them go. Other car makes will take their place. It's literally insane to do this over and over and expect a different result every time we do. As far as the banks go, if they acted illegally and are part responsible for what happened, I'd probably let them go. But not without a plan of action when I did. ;D I would put you in Charge of the banks and give you a top 1% salary and sit back and see how you act. ;D
Hookbender — Jul 18, 2014 Our constitution really doesn't mean much anymore, it's ignored.
I challenge this part of your argument. There are two things at play here, one,
are we using the constitution correctly, or is it ignored? I would argue that we are using the consitution correctly. If you've read up on the creation and drafting of the Constitution, this is how it was supposed to work. It is intentionally very confused and vague. It is not clear in every instance about everything. The reason is simple--the drafters of the Constitution were really in an internal battle over how the new country should work. Some wanted a supreme executive, like a king, who would make every last decision. Some wanted a very weak government, and for all power to emanate from the states. What they came up with was a document that is open to interpretation, and allows for wide latitude and interpretation. I believe that our constitution is largely followed and upheld, and the instances of extra-constitutionality are actually quite rare.
The second question on the Constitution is,
are we using it as the framers would have intended? I think the obvious answer is no. If you could see how the United States, and human civilization, has changed since 1789, there's no question the framers could not have ever imagined this world. No one could have. The constitutional framers couldn't possibly account for the advancement of humanity. But the document they left is vague enough, and open enough to amendment, that its design allows our country to continue to work.
Certainly there are problems... the main one being the inability to work as a Congress now, because of the 50/50 ideological split and the overrepresentation of underpopulated regions. But it's not the constitution's fault, and we're not misusing it... we're using to correctly, it just doesn't make anyone happy.
I answer your challenge.
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/02/27/power-presidency-turley
Interesting read.
Remember when Bush was after Binny and he kinda stopped and attacked and took over Iraq? I would argue that he didn't have the authority to do so. He does have the obligation to protect our country. Even if Hussein had wmd's, he didn't threaten us with them. And, he didn't have them. This is speculation, but I bet we knew he didn't have them. Just a guess. I don't at all see in the constitution where it gives the President, or our country, to dictate to other countries and if they fail to respond like we want them too, we take over their country, kill every member of Hussein's family, give him a trail he can't possible win, and kill him. Now look at Iraq. Hell, look at the entire middle east. It's been a nightmare since Hussein departed. Bottom line is, Iraq was no threat to America, and we basically destroyed their country. Over nothing. No wmd's found. None. I don't think America understands how the middle east works. And, I think we should stay out of their business. If we ever do that, I bet some of our deep seeded hate from our friends over there would decrease.
I don't have the knowledge to produce a really good, credible argument on this topic. But saying the constitution is vague, really??? Show me in the constitution where it gives the President the authority to force the people to purchase something if they have the means and fine them if they don't. I don't think the vague argument works. It may be true, but it doesn't apply or defeat my stance.
I agree with the guy in that article. I think government, and the President (:D) have become way to powerful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_ResolutionVoted on after false info was presented. Was it a crime? Maybe
I don't agree with the example on this. Healthcare was passed by Congress and the Senate, it wasn't enacted by the president. Using that as an example of the president abusing power kind of invalidates the argument to me. And yeah, Bush invaded Iraq. Was that stupid and lame? Yeah. Did it cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars? Yeah. Was it unconstitutional? No.
It aint no coinkeedink that it's all about "presidential overreach" right now
charger — Jul 18, 2014I don't agree with the example on this. Healthcare was passed by Congress and the Senate, it wasn't enacted by the president. Using that as an example of the president abusing power kind of invalidates the argument to me. And yeah, Bush invaded Iraq. Was that stupid and lame? Yeah. Did it cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars? Yeah. Was it unconstitutional? No.
I would say that congress and the senate violated the constitution as well as many of these folks didn't read the bill before they voted. And regardless if they did read the bill, how can government force people to purchase something? And fine them if they don't.
Where in the constitution does it give the president the power to invade a country because it has weapons, take out their leader, and bomb the fuck out of it killing innocent people in the process..... just because we don't like the way that leader runs their country? Their were no threats from Iraq to America, no links to Osoma. No wmd's. No nothing. I can't find a reason deserving of what they did. If someone doesn't like the way we run our country and they fly planes into our buildings and that's considered way uncool. Horrible, a terrorist attack, etc. Why is it ok for us to do it and not other countries/groups, etc?
Hookbender — Jul 19, 2014[quote author=charger link=1404776484/50#69 date=1405727861]I don't agree with the example on this. Healthcare was passed by Congress and the Senate, it wasn't enacted by the president. Using that as an example of the president abusing power kind of invalidates the argument to me. And yeah, Bush invaded Iraq. Was that stupid and lame? Yeah. Did it cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars? Yeah. Was it unconstitutional? No.
I would say that congress and the senate violated the constitution as well as many of these folks didn't read the bill before they voted. And regardless if they did read the bill, how can government force people to purchase something? And fine them if they don't.
Where in the constitution does it give the president the power to invade a country because it has weapons, take out their leader, and bomb the fuck out of it killing innocent people in the process..... just because we don't like the way that leader runs their country? Their were no threats from Iraq to America, no links to Osoma. No wmd's. No nothing. I can't find a reason deserving of what they did. If someone doesn't like the way we run our country and they fly planes into our buildings and that's considered way uncool. Horrible, a terrorist attack, etc. Why is it ok for us to do it and not other countries/groups, etc?
Didn't you support both of these when they went down?
BINGEWOOD — Jul 19, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/50#71 date=1405802315][quote author=charger link=1404776484/50#69 date=1405727861]I don't agree with the example on this. Healthcare was passed by Congress and the Senate, it wasn't enacted by the president. Using that as an example of the president abusing power kind of invalidates the argument to me. And yeah, Bush invaded Iraq. Was that stupid and lame? Yeah. Did it cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars? Yeah. Was it unconstitutional? No.
I would say that congress and the senate violated the constitution as well as many of these folks didn't read the bill before they voted. And regardless if they did read the bill, how can government force people to purchase something? And fine them if they don't.
Where in the constitution does it give the president the power to invade a country because it has weapons, take out their leader, and bomb the fuck out of it killing innocent people in the process..... just because we don't like the way that leader runs their country? Their were no threats from Iraq to America, no links to Osoma. No wmd's. No nothing. I can't find a reason deserving of what they did. If someone doesn't like the way we run our country and they fly planes into our buildings and that's considered way uncool. Horrible, a terrorist attack, etc. Why is it ok for us to do it and not other countries/groups, etc?
Didn't you support both of these when they went down?
Doesn't matter. This discussion isn't about whether or not one supports either one.
But at the time you weren't talking about the constitution
What difference does that make? It's in the news. MSMBC, Fox, ABC, NBC, talk radio, etc. Your fishing and playing games. It doesn't matter who told me. it's the subject of this discussion right now. You can participate or not. Your choice. Your line of questioning is childish and a waste of time. If you have something add, or say, go for it. The position I had 20 years ago, politically, isn't of any value and has no meaning in the discussion.
In other words, I ain't taking the bait.
BINGEWOOD — Jul 19, 2014[quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/50#71 date=1405802315][quote author=charger link=1404776484/50#69 date=1405727861]I don't agree with the example on this. Healthcare was passed by Congress and the Senate, it wasn't enacted by the president. Using that as an example of the president abusing power kind of invalidates the argument to me. And yeah, Bush invaded Iraq. Was that stupid and lame? Yeah. Did it cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars? Yeah. Was it unconstitutional? No.
I would say that congress and the senate violated the constitution as well as many of these folks didn't read the bill before they voted. And regardless if they did read the bill, how can government force people to purchase something? And fine them if they don't.
Where in the constitution does it give the president the power to invade a country because it has weapons, take out their leader, and bomb the fuck out of it killing innocent people in the process..... just because we don't like the way that leader runs their country? Their were no threats from Iraq to America, no links to Osoma. No wmd's. No nothing. I can't find a reason deserving of what they did. If someone doesn't like the way we run our country and they fly planes into our buildings and that's considered way uncool. Horrible, a terrorist attack, etc. Why is it ok for us to do it and not other countries/groups, etc?
Didn't you support both of these when they went down?
This is the post you decided to respond too. You answered no questions in the post and added no opinion concerning the post. You just asked a question that has nothing to do with the post to start with. Trolling perhaps?
Why didn't you reject both at the time due to them going against the constitution? Is yelling about the constitution the last gasp of desperate obstructionists? What do you think about 5/4 decisions in the supreme court and what do they say about constitutionality?
BINGEWOOD — Jul 20, 2014Why didn't you reject both at the time due to them going against the constitution? Is yelling about the constitution the last gasp of desperate obstructionists? What do you think about 5/4 decisions in the supreme court and what do they say about constitutionality?
You still answered no questions. :D
I'm pretty sure at the time I didn't to much consider the constitution. I was deep in the conservative mindset then. The reason I'm voicing an opinion now, is mostly because I am against this take over a country and make it like ours mentality. Our government doesn't understand that part of the country, apparently. I surely don't either, for that matter. If the folks over their are hating us because we have a superior mindset and we interfere in their world, I can now understand that. I'd say a 5/4 is almost a 50/50 split. Voicing a opinion is yelling about anything.
I was against Obamacare, for the record. Still am.
Look at what's happened to Iran. New leader, new outlook. What if we would have went to war with them? I'm not saying they suddenly love us. But it doesn't look like we are all about attacking them now.
If you listen to fox at all, they are now talking about building up our military again. Their saying these countries, even China, are testing us by doing all the crap their doing. Why, because we are weak as a country. We aren't weak as a country because our military needs to be larger. It's bullshit. Everytime another country does anything, they feed us half the information and say we're weak and all that junk. What do they expect us to do? Bomb every country that does anything we don't like? That mentality is ignorant, old, and wore out. just like the conservatives.
The ACA was passed, signed in, and challenged. It made it through the systems we have to determine constitutionality.
Iraq went through the proper channels as well. Does it make it "right"? I dunno, depends on one's "right", right?
Yeah but, the constitution is vague and left up for debate. :D
Right, the debate ends at the court, until the next challenge, the next court...
It made it through the systems we have to determine constitutionality.
so what? John Roberts doesn't hand down etched tablets of stone.
uncomfortable with 5-4 decisions? this one was 7-2!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
or, how about a 6-3?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States
just because someone got elected to an office or wears black robes that doesn't mean they are suddenly superior in intellect, moral fibre, wisdom and free from prejudice. I don't believe in that kind of superman anymore than I believe in santa claus.
I DID argue against the ACA from a constitutional standpoint, by the way. does that make a difference or give me some bullshit board-cred on the matter? no. most people didn't give a shit then and they don't now. they wanted an end result and didn't give a shit about the means. sadly, contrary to the common expression, it's the means that
become the end. there's no justification.
actually, I still do think it's unconstitutional and I don't give a fuck what the supreme court says about it. so what? doesn't count for shit what I think.
the point is, the federal government can now require you to buy things and it's all "legal". if you don't think that can and will be abused, you are imaginatively impaired.
"Doesn't matter what I think" is where I'm at, but constitutionality is "vague and up to debate" by a very few people. That is how it's set up in the document.
Would you see a "Medicare for all", single payer, system as the same in terms of being forced by the gov to buy things? Do you see soc security as the same?
it's not set up that way in the document, it was set up that way by Marbury v. Madison... but yeah, that's the way it's worked ever since. the four years between ratification and that decision were the only period where the founding document, as originally written, was in effect! heh.
no, I don't think they are the same because you're not buying anything tangible like an insurance product. a consensual/contractual ponzi. you have access to the courts if they fail to honor the contract. in the social security - medicare - single payer - etc model, you're forced to participate in a no-recourse (regressively taxed) ponzi. you have no access to redress if they cut you off because you don't have standing to sue the U.S. Government.
but the main problem is the precedent. can people honestly not see a few feet down this road? what if you were required to purchase a mobile phone (with GPS tracking always enabled, of course... mic always on too plz)? a gun? how about google glasses? carbon credits? what if birth control goes from "free" to "required"? I hear bill gates is working on remote controlled birth control... badass, huh? maybe make people buy some of that? how about some Monsanto products? did you remember to attach your receipt for 1 Gal. of Roundup to your 1040EZ this year? sounds kinda silly, maybe... but doesn't it also sound like "targeted stimulus" or "lobbyist's dream"? hell, just use your imagination... you'll come up with better shit that I am right now.
Four years of purity... Not the best track record for constitutional fundamentalism. Heh heh
I think Ironsheep laid it out for you.
The deal is simple. Government has effectively changed the way government works. They have pretty much added massive power by forcing us to purchase a product and fine those who don't purchase this. Not to mention businesses.
It's fine to be liberal. It's fine to support Obama. But when you stick your head in the sand and ignore the huge implications of this aspect of Obamacare to protect and defend a party and the democratic president, you pretty much lose credibility in my book. It's fine to want healthcare for everyone. But the way the government achieved that goal is simply wrong. The government has forced us to purchase a product. We will pay a huge price for this down the road.
Not to mention the lies. Remember Obama saying our cost will go down? Have they? (insurance cost) Remember him saying he would make sure everyone knows whats going on with shit like Obamacare? Hell, even the people voting on it were kept out of the loop.
You see all the people the government is letting come across our boarders? Think that may effect the cost of Obamacare? Yep. Little hidden fuck you in the ass things like that will also cost us down the road. Their is no way they can determine the real cost of this because the amount of people that get free services will continue to rise, again, because our government sticks their head in the sand. Or, they just consider us so stupid we won't notice things like this.
Yet you called it "a good start".
Sheep has proven that getting to the intent of the document wasn't even easy for the creators.
[quote author=Hookbender link=1404776484/75#86 date=1405952188]I think Ironsheep laid it out for you.
The deal is simple. Government has effectively changed the way government works. They have pretty much added massive power by forcing us to purchase a product and fine those who don't purchase this. Not to mention businesses.
They will continue to do what they do. Are people with insurance being forced to buy something? Massive power? OK... I thought they had massive power, but OK...
It's fine to be liberal. It's fine to support Obama. But when you stick your head in the sand and ignore the huge implications of this aspect of Obamacare to protect and defend a party and the democratic president, you pretty much lose credibility in my book. It's fine to want healthcare for everyone. But the way the government achieved that goal is simply wrong. The government has forced us to purchase a product. We will pay a huge price for this down the road.
I favor a single payer, tax based, system. The mandates are the right wing solution, "personal responsibility" n' all
Hookbender — Jul 19, 2014[quote author=charger link=1404776484/50#69 date=1405727861]I don't agree with the example on this. Healthcare was passed by Congress and the Senate, it wasn't enacted by the president. Using that as an example of the president abusing power kind of invalidates the argument to me. And yeah, Bush invaded Iraq. Was that stupid and lame? Yeah. Did it cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars? Yeah. Was it unconstitutional? No.
I would say that congress and the senate violated the constitution as well as many of these folks didn't read the bill before they voted. And regardless if they did read the bill, how can government force people to purchase something? And fine them if they don't.
Where in the constitution does it give the president the power to invade a country because it has weapons, take out their leader, and bomb the fuck out of it killing innocent people in the process..... just because we don't like the way that leader runs their country? Their were no threats from Iraq to America, no links to Osoma. No wmd's. No nothing. I can't find a reason deserving of what they did. If someone doesn't like the way we run our country and they fly planes into our buildings and that's considered way uncool. Horrible, a terrorist attack, etc. Why is it ok for us to do it and not other countries/groups, etc?
It's not where does it authorize all that... it's where does it not allow it? Nowhere is it disallowed.
ironsheep — Jul 21, 2014It made it through the systems we have to determine constitutionality.
so what? John Roberts doesn't hand down etched tablets of stone.
uncomfortable with 5-4 decisions? this one was 7-2!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
or, how about a 6-3?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States
just because someone got elected to an office or wears black robes that doesn't mean they are suddenly superior in intellect, moral fibre, wisdom and free from prejudice. I don't believe in that kind of superman anymore than I believe in santa claus.
I DID argue against the ACA from a constitutional standpoint, by the way. does that make a difference or give me some bullshit board-cred on the matter? no. most people didn't give a shit then and they don't now. they wanted an end result and didn't give a shit about the means. sadly, contrary to the common expression, it's the means that
become the end. there's no justification.
actually, I still do think it's unconstitutional and I don't give a fuck what the supreme court says about it. so what? doesn't count for shit what I think.
the point is, the federal government can now require you to buy things and it's all "legal". if you don't think that can and will be abused, you are imaginatively impaired.
The federal government can also force you to pay for subsidies to peanut farmers, even if you are allergic to peanuts, or pay for cruise missiles, even if you are a pacifist, even if you are a pacifist on religious grounds. Before the ACA, you also paid for people who showed up at the emrgency room needing care, and then went bankrupt. The only difference between the ACA and the way it used to work is that the costs are now in the light instead of hidden in a tax bill.
Anyway, this argument is not really related to a $15 minimum wage. I think the $15 minimum wage is a great idea... a great idea completely unrelated to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and completely unrelated to Obamacare.
I didn't have to go find a peanut farmer, write him a check and provide a receipt to the IRS every year. that's the difference.
we've never had the ability to break down our tax payments or get an itemized accounting of what our particular dollar was spent on... so I don't really buy this argument. it's akin to the other fallback, state mandated car insurance... which I can avoid entirely if I don't own a car or only use one on private property. only way out of a health insurance mandate is to be dead.
by the way: please don't assume that I'm against solving the problem of a fucked up health care system. I appreciate (and share) the goal of affordable access to health care for everyone. I just (vehemently) disagree with this way of doing it.
charger — Jul 21, 2014[quote author=ironsheep link=1404776484/75#82 date=1405908524]It made it through the systems we have to determine constitutionality.
so what? John Roberts doesn't hand down etched tablets of stone.
uncomfortable with 5-4 decisions? this one was 7-2!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
or, how about a 6-3?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States
just because someone got elected to an office or wears black robes that doesn't mean they are suddenly superior in intellect, moral fibre, wisdom and free from prejudice. I don't believe in that kind of superman anymore than I believe in santa claus.
I DID argue against the ACA from a constitutional standpoint, by the way. does that make a difference or give me some bullshit board-cred on the matter? no. most people didn't give a shit then and they don't now. they wanted an end result and didn't give a shit about the means. sadly, contrary to the common expression, it's the means that
become the end. there's no justification.
actually, I still do think it's unconstitutional and I don't give a fuck what the supreme court says about it. so what? doesn't count for shit what I think.
the point is, the federal government can now require you to buy things and it's all "legal". if you don't think that can and will be abused, you are imaginatively impaired.
The federal government can also force you to pay for subsidies to peanut farmers, even if you are allergic to peanuts, or pay for cruise missiles, even if you are a pacifist, even if you are a pacifist on religious grounds. Before the ACA, you also paid for people who showed up at the emrgency room needing care, and then went bankrupt. The only difference between the ACA and the way it used to work is that the costs are now in the light instead of hidden in a tax bill.
Well, if thats true, I want my fucking tax credit/cuts to happen right fucking now.
you think that will happen? Nope. So we have to take on this massive responsibility and cost, in addition to the tax bill your referring too. I get it. thats fair as hell. >:( And this new cost will have to be adjusted everyday, upward of course, because we have people being born, and shitloads of people entering our country illegally daily. And don't say shit about us sending 28 people back to their country. ;D
religious people have been fighting wars forever. they may be the worst as far as going to war and fighting. One only has to look to the middle east to see the religious in full swing. I don't mind helping farmers. We've been doing that for a long time. And part of my point is just that. We stick our head in other people's business so damn much that those people are sick of it. Our government shouldn't be using these bombs and shit at will unless it's to defend against aggression on our country. Our people. This defense system israel has, for example, we pay for the bombs. they can't afford it. News flash, we can't either. We don't have a obligation to defend the world, help maybe at times, but not defend the world. Our government needs a reality check. They spend our money with little thought, except that they probably battle over what to spend it on. That battle needs to change to how not to spend money. My mortage consist of $153.62 per month towards principle, and $144.84..... per month .... in taxes and insurance.
I get a little heated when it comes to government. I wish Americans had the time and resources, and especially the will, to tell the government to fuck the hell off. I really do! I'm sick of all of em.
When I first got here, I had a huge reality check into finding out the truth. I had to learn how to search beyond the news to locate the truth. Politically, I wish I failed in that regard because the truth is usually worse than the lie. ;D
oh, you're the guy who knows the truth? I should ask you more questions...
hey hook, here's something fun to do for the old truth file... look up Ted Cruz... then check out where his wife works... lol.
Hookbender — Jul 21, 2014When I first got here, I had a huge reality check into finding out the truth. I had to learn how to search beyond the news to locate the truth. Politically, I wish I failed in that regard because the truth is usually worse than the lie. ;D
What is the truth? Seems to me it's whatever is politically expedient. Meanwhile, I still think that the poor should make higher minimum wages. It's certainly opinion, but I believe it's not unsound theoretically either.
Hookbender — Jul 21, 2014
My mortage consist of $153.62 per month towards principle, and $144.84..... per month .... in taxes and insurance.
I get a little heated when it comes to government. I wish Americans had the time and resources, and especially the will, to tell the government to fuck the hell off. I really do! I'm sick of all of em.
The property tax part goes to your local community, not the federal government. The insurance is so you can rebuild your house if it burns down. Why are you heated about that? You can certainly choose I assume not to insure your house if you own it outright. But you don't... someone else bought it, and now you are paying them for it. They certainly have a right to cover the cost of it if they are left holding the bag, don't they?