Bet thread
-
come on Heck.... seriously constitutional law....... pretty heavy reading for anyone...... cal and company are not interested in studying anything objectively so constitutional law is WAY beyond them.
All they want to do is post op-ed pieces and parrot what their party politics are pushing toward the sheep.
I once thought you could actually reason and have a real discussion on the merits of each respective position........ but that is not possible.
come on Heck.... seriously constitutional law....... pretty heavy reading for anyone...... cal and company are not interested in studying anything objectively so constitutional law is WAY beyond them.
Unlike you , right professor?
So answer, brag boy, I don't expect the SC would consider it unconstitutional BUT I bet there'd be at least one or two dissenting votes if ut gets there.
So it's most likely not as cut and dried as your vast expertise might lead you to believe.
-
Well, it should make for an interesting bet then, wouldn't it?
-
come on Heck.... seriously constitutional law....... pretty heavy reading for anyone...... cal and company are not interested in studying anything objectively so constitutional law is WAY beyond them.
Unlike you , right professor?
So answer, brag boy, I don't expect the SC would consider it unconstitutional BUT I bet there'd be at least one or two dissenting votes if ut gets there.
So it's most likely not as cut and dried as your vast expertise might lead you to believe.
Unlike you , right professor?
So answer, brag boy, I don't expect the SC would consider it unconstitutional BUT I bet there'd be at least one or two dissenting votes if ut gets there.
So it's most likely not as cut and dried as your vast expertise might lead you to believe.
Quite honestly Steve when it comes to Law.... I hire lawyers... Constitutional law..... no idea and the balance of states rights versus federal..... another heavy read subject that I am not qualified to answer....
I do happen to read and study a lot of things but not this.... (its a little dry for my tastes)
My gut feeling is that the Federal government IF they pass something of this magnitude they do hold a lot of leverage in terms of Highway construction funds that EVERY state needs (ie the minimum drinking age) that they can use......
As for Constitutionality ...... well the medicare expansion was passed federally those also in theory might have to be rolled back also...... I dont see that likely....... and federal criminal laws have seperate jurisdiction within each state...... as do tax laws.......
It just does not make any logical sense.....
-
Congress has no power to make someone buy something.
the 10th amendment limits the powers of the government to only those SPECIFICALLY granted by the constitution.
It doesn't matter if there is nothing in the constitution to prevent the government from requiring the purchase of health insurance. That's not the way our law works. The power has to be specifically given to congress BY the constitution for it to be legal.
The power of Congress include:
the powers to levy and collect taxes; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, promote progress of science by issuing patents, create federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm, and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia, and to make laws necessary to properly execute these powers.
Sorry libs, forced health care is not constitutional.
-
Well, then. You can rest easy, huh?
Problem is, you've got the commerce clause, and you've got the provisions that give Congress the power to tax and spend money.
-
forcing someone to spend their own money is not a tax, it is not raising money for government operations. weak argument #1.
the commerce clause?
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".
says nothing of forcing individuals to buy something. weak argument #2. the commerce clause give the federal gov't power to regulate trade between states. not force people to buy things.
-
Yes, health care is a taxing and spending issue because it involves ...taxing and spending. But you guys can imagine this is unconstitutional all you like. You're just setting yourself up for another crushing disappointment.
As for the student loan bill, this is a great idea. Let's unpack it for those who have better things to do than go through student loan bills. I'm guessing T doesn't know anything about it other than what he's been told to be afraid of, but there's nothing to be afraid of.
First of all, the government has always been deeply involved in the student loan business, guaranteeing every loan private lenders made to students. (No one like T seemed to care about the "government takeover" then.)
What is going to change is that we're no longer going to pay billions in taxpayer money to private lenders to service these loans, and back them to the tune of 97 cents on the dollar. Now the government is simply going to make the loans themselves. We're eliminating the step in the middle, which is mostly useless and wasteful.
Eliminating this step, and loaning the money straight to students, saves $60 billion dollars over the next decade. And that money is going to go into more Pell grants, making more money available for student loans, making repayment terms easier, and some money will be even left over to put towards deficit reduction.
And no more kickback scandals. Remember those? Some of these lenders had to pay millions in fines.
Again, if you're a lunatic who freaks out every time the government performs a function it's fully capable of performing, you probably hate this, even though employing the private lenders is more expensive, led to countless problems, and they often gouged students with unpredictable rate hikes.
Now we're going to save money, the system will be easier to understand for students, and the repayment terms will be more friendly. And at a time when college costs go up and up every year. Good policy, no?
Plus, any private bank that wants to get in the student loan business by raising private capital is still free to do so. They're just no longer going to have the taxpayers to back them for providing a service that we don't really need them to provide anyway.
This is a win for the government, it's a win for taxpayers, and it's a win for students.
Thanks, Democratic Congress.
-
I am going to have to agree with Heck here. The government has always had a hand in backing student loans. And might I add, unlike health care, going to school is optional.
-
Don't worry, Kosar. We won't make it a habit.
It was a nice gig for the lenders - loan out some money, mess with the rates, and if the student defaults, the government pays you back anyway. Who wouldn't want to keep that gravy train running?
Some people wanted to continue this charade, including some Democrats who, oddly enough, come from states where these lenders reside. Imagine that!
Thankfully they, and the Republicans, have lost this one. And we just saved $60 billion dollars, which will be mostly given back to students in the form of more Pell Grants.
But hey, some people won't be able to run around mumbling about free markets anymore. Even though this wasn't a free market to begin with. And that makes them sad.
Oh, well.
-
Don't worry, Kosar. We won't make it a habit.
It was a nice gig for the lenders - loan out some money, mess with the rates, and if the student defaults, the government pays you back anyway. Who wouldn't want to keep that gravy train running?
Some people wanted to continue this charade, including some Democrats who, oddly enough, come from states where these lenders reside. Imagine that!
Thankfully they, and the Republicans, have lost this one. And we just saved $60 billion dollars, which will be mostly given back to students in the form of more Pell Grants.
But hey, some people won't be able to run around mumbling about free markets anymore. Even though this wasn't a free market to begin with. And that makes them sad.
Oh, well.
And we just saved $60 billion dollars, which will be mostly given back to students in the form of more Pell Grants.
Show me the money? It is like show me the llink to that statement. The gripe over this is that the profits which are enormous will be earned by Big Brother. Will they be taxed on profits since they are now the largest business in America?
-
That's from the CBO report. $61 billion over ten years would be saved. If you want a link, try Google and in a millisecond you should have a few hundred hits, since the figure is everywhere. The fact that you haven't seen it tells me you haven't been following this all that closely, or at all. Someone just told you about a "GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER" and that's all you needed to hear.
And no, this isn't going to be run as a traditional for-profit business, and non-profit lenders can also compete for these loans.
Any other questions?
-
come on Heck.... seriously constitutional law....... pretty heavy reading for anyone...... cal and company are not interested in studying anything objectively so constitutional law is WAY beyond them.
All they want to do is post op-ed pieces and parrot what their party politics are pushing toward the sheep.
I once thought you could actually reason and have a real discussion on the merits of each respective position........ but that is not possible.
come on Heck.... seriously constitutional law....... pretty heavy reading for anyone...... cal and company are not interested in studying anything objectively so constitutional law is WAY beyond them.
All they want to do is post op-ed pieces and parrot what their party politics are pushing toward the sheep.
I once thought you could actually reason and have a real discussion on the merits of each respective position........ but that is not possible.
No, of course not. Believe me, after five years, I know this. But I'm not here for reasoned discussion.
-
Yes, health care is a taxing and spending issue because it involves ...taxing and spending. But you guys can imagine this is unconstitutional all you like. You're just setting yourself up for another crushing disappointment.
As for the student loan bill, this is a great idea. Let's unpack it for those who have better things to do than go through student loan bills. I'm guessing T doesn't know anything about it other than what he's been told to be afraid of, but there's nothing to be afraid of.
First of all, the government has always been deeply involved in the student loan business, guaranteeing every loan private lenders made to students. (No one like T seemed to care about the "government takeover" then.)
What is going to change is that we're no longer going to pay billions in taxpayer money to private lenders to service these loans, and back them to the tune of 97 cents on the dollar. Now the government is simply going to make the loans themselves. We're eliminating the step in the middle, which is mostly useless and wasteful.
Eliminating this step, and loaning the money straight to students, saves $60 billion dollars over the next decade. And that money is going to go into more Pell grants, making more money available for student loans, making repayment terms easier, and some money will be even left over to put towards deficit reduction.
And no more kickback scandals. Remember those? Some of these lenders had to pay millions in fines.
Again, if you're a lunatic who freaks out every time the government performs a function it's fully capable of performing, you probably hate this, even though employing the private lenders is more expensive, led to countless problems, and they often gouged students with unpredictable rate hikes.
Now we're going to save money, the system will be easier to understand for students, and the repayment terms will be more friendly. And at a time when college costs go up and up every year. Good policy, no?
Plus, any private bank that wants to get in the student loan business by raising private capital is still free to do so. They're just no longer going to have the taxpayers to back them for providing a service that we don't really need them to provide anyway.
This is a win for the government, it's a win for taxpayers, and it's a win for students.
Thanks, Democratic Congress.
Yes, health care is a taxing and spending issue because it involves ...taxing and spending. But you guys can imagine this is unconstitutional all you like. You're just setting yourself up for another crushing disappointment.
Sorry, that is just weak. Requiring someone to buy something is not a tax. It doesn't matter what it involves or does not involve. Making someone buy healthcare is NOT any part of:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
If Congress wanted to tax everyone and then buy them insurance, yes that would be constitutional. But they cannot make someone buy something, it's not in the constitution. They cannot do it.
The only examples congress has ever used a tax other than to raise revenue:
To regulate industry
to discourage industry
tariffs for protectionism
weak argument #3
-
Pumpin, go back and read what I read. The power to do this rests in the tax and spending provisions and the commerce clause.
You're reading the text of the Constitution, and disregarding years of legal precedent. These things are not as simple as looking at the original document as it was written in 1789 and saying, "Hey, that's not in there!"
It's just a conservative fantasy.
Wanna bet?
-
Also, do you want to stop for a second and think of two forms of insurance the government already makes you buy? (Hint: look at your paycheck.)
-
One is a tax to provide a safety net.
The other is a forced procurement of a service, and a penality for not procuring it,
while setting up the abolishment of any competition.
egad.
-
Pumpin, go back and read what I read. The power to do this rests in the tax and spending provisions and the commerce clause.
You're reading the text of the Constitution, and disregarding years of legal precedent. These things are not as simple as looking at the original document as it was written in 1789 and saying, "Hey, that's not in there!"
It's just a conservative fantasy.
Wanna bet?
Pumpin, go back and read what I read. The power to do this rests in the tax and spending provisions and the commerce clause.
You're reading the text of the Constitution, and disregarding years of legal precedent. These things are not as simple as looking at the original document as it was written in 1789 and saying, "Hey, that's not in there!"
It's just a conservative fantasy.
Wanna bet?
So which way will you have it?
Was or is Obama a Constitutional lawyer?
You are contradicting yourself from earlier posts saying that Obama studied the Constitution. Just like a crook studies a building so as to find an easy and undetectable way of entering.
-
Oh, for God's sake. Just a little self-awareness about how big a nut you are would do a world of good. Just a little.
-
Also, do you want to stop for a second and think of two forms of insurance the government already makes you buy? (Hint: look at your paycheck.)
Also, do you want to stop for a second and think of two forms of insurance the government already makes you buy? (Hint: look at your paycheck.)
We aren't using SS and Medicare as examples of how government programs run efficently are we?
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login