test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Spike

Politics & Stuff

Started by Spike,

7,088 posts in this topic
24 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Congress has the absolute power of the purse, it can spend money on whatever it deems fit, with the POTUS signature. If the POTUS vetos it (either proactively or via pocket veto) then Congress can override his veto and the money is spent. The ONLY thing you can do, if you do not like what they spend money on, is to vote in enough members to stop the spending you do not like. The SCOTUS can intervene in specific cases where there are legal challenges. Obamacare was such a case.

The SCOTUS found it CONSTITUTIONAL in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power.

Thus my posting of the 16th Amendment as an example of Congress's power of the purse (both revenue raising and then appropriations themselves..

Again, you do not even have a basic knowledge of your own country's method of constitutional government.

The US Constitution is NOT some crackpot anarcho-capitalistic, minarchist, Ayn Randian Objectivist claptrap, or whatever else fringe libertarian pseudo philosophical ode to 'I got mine so FUCK YOU!' lunacy.

You want it to be, then vote in enough of your fellow travellers (not just at Federal level, but in 37 state legislatures too, as that is the threshold) and AMEND IT!

good luck with that buttercup!

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

 

President Obama and the Democratic party creating laws that go against the original US constitution, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. :lol:

I don't think you are getting it. AOC is meaning to create laws that go against the Constitution, just as Obama did in 2010. The fact you think that by merely changing the original US constitution, is OK, is worrying. Not only that, but it shows the dangers of Socialism. 

72% of Americans say the healthcare mandate is unconstitutional. https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/03/01/the-constitutional-issue-in-obamacare-isnt-cost-but-control/#10f311b6cef9

54% of Americans who think the healthcare mandate is a good thing, say its unconstitutional.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/03/01/the-constitutional-issue-in-obamacare-isnt-cost-but-control/#10f311b6cef9

 

And what did this mandate do? A mandate more than 70% of the country viewed as unconstitutional? Add 940 Billion in debt. The most debt out of any presidential policy. 

 

That is the issue with Socialism. It leads to economic decay. 

 

I await your response. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to collect income tax. Tax that goes directly to public roads and transport, military, and police force. These are considered public goods as these are goods we ALL consume. We ALL drive on the same roads. We ALL are protected by the police and we ALL are protected by our military. 

Sorry to but in as I'm enjoying your chat.

But so you are OK about your taxes going towards the copt,military,roads - that you consume. But don't you get sick? What happens if you cant afford your or a loved ones treatment in hospital?

How about if you cant afford to send your child to school or college?

Its not just everyone else you are paying these taxes to help. Its to your benefit too.

We in the UK might moan about our Social security system and how newcommers to the country get their benifits too easily (yes in some cases peeps come here and do take the piss to get free housing,meds etc) but the option would be that many would go sick and homeless other wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

Sorry to but in as I'm enjoying your chat.

But so you are OK about your taxes going towards the copt,military,roads - that you consume. But don't you get sick? What happens if you cant afford your or a loved ones treatment in hospital?

How about if you cant afford to send your child to school or college?

Its not just everyone else you are paying these taxes to help. Its to your benefit too.

We in the UK might moan about our Social security system and how newcommers to the country get their benifits too easily (yes in some cases peeps come here and do take the piss to get free housing,meds etc) but the option would be that many would go sick and homeless other wise.

A. I want healthcare to become a free market. Not regulated. Affordable healthcare for those who can afford it. 

B. If you can't afford to send you child to college you shouldn't be having children. Not planning for your child's future is just bad parenting. I came to the states at 19, worked two jobs and put myself full time in a technical college. Not having that as an excuse. The opportunity is there. 

 

I'm not familiar with UK laws, but in the states, The original US constitution protects your individual rights. No one can seize your money and give it to someone else. It's an argument of morality. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MoroccanBlue said:

B. If you can't afford to send you child to college you shouldn't be having children. Not planning for your child's future is just bad parenting. I came to the states at 19, worked two jobs and put myself full time in a technical college. Not having that as an excuse. The opportunity is there. 

How about if you was doing the 2 jobs,2;4 kids,mortgage up to your eyeballs,big gas guzzler in the garage. And you became ill. You couldn't work. You couldn't afford insurance. You was going to lose your house to the bank as you cant goto work OR you had been made redundant or something?

You have no savings as you was on minimal wage. No family to ask for help.

What do you do then?

Have your kids go into care? Then go live in the car?

Shit happens. We might TRY our best to plan for the future but Ive found that lifes a bitch at times and all good intentions mean nothing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

How about if you was doing the 2 jobs,2;4 kids,mortgage up to your eyeballs,big gas guzzler in the garage. And you became ill. You couldn't work. You couldn't afford insurance. You was going to lose your house to the bank as you cant goto work OR you had been made redundant or something?

You have no savings as you was on minimal wage. No family to ask for help.

What do you do then?

Have your kids go into care? Then go live in the car?

Shit happens. We might TRY our best to plan for the future but Ive found that lifes a bitch at times and all good intentions mean nothing!

Extreme hypothetical there :lol:

A. You shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them. 

B. You shouldn't have a mortgage if you can't afford it. (Thank god banks are more strict after the 2008 crises.) 

C. You shouldn't be working for a company that doesn't have workers comp. Which shouldn't be any as every business is required to have it in the States. 

 

So if I was working 2 jobs, had a mortgage, had 4 kids, got ill and worked for an employer that couldn't insure me if I got ill or injured, which all led to my house being foreclosed. I would say tough shit. No one's fault by my own. I shouldn't have planned my expenditures so naively and not plan ahead in case something like this would happen. Especially the situation I'm in. 

 

What led to that, is a mixture of very bad decisions. So we as Americans, should be forced against our will, to pay for those people's bad decisions? Do you not see the moral objection with that? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

President Obama and the Democratic party creating laws that go against the original US constitution, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. :lol:

I don't think you are getting it. AOC is meaning to create laws that go against the Constitution, just as Obama did in 2010. The fact you think that by merely changing the original US constitution, is OK, is worrying. Not only that, but it shows the dangers of Socialism. 

72% of Americans say the healthcare mandate is unconstitutional. https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/03/01/the-constitutional-issue-in-obamacare-isnt-cost-but-control/#10f311b6cef9

54% of Americans who think the healthcare mandate is a good thing, say its unconstitutional.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/03/01/the-constitutional-issue-in-obamacare-isnt-cost-but-control/#10f311b6cef9

 

And what did this mandate do? A mandate more than 70% of the country viewed as unconstitutional? Add 940 Billion in debt. The most debt out of any presidential policy. 

 

That is the issue with Socialism. It leads to economic decay. 

 

I await your response. 

 

 

Number one, I not on your time zone, I am in Sweden, and I just got off a wicked hard week of work. I promise I will fully respond to all sometime this weekend. I want to talk footie atm.

That said, you STILL do not grasp how American laws and federal fiduciary expenditures work. There is NO constitutional definition of what Congress cannot spend money on. There are things they are mandated to spend funds on, but their are no general prohibitions as to fiscal outays (other than it cannot establish a state religion). So you argument that somehow things you do not like are unconstitutional is ludicrous. It is absolute BOLLOCKS, as proven by 200 plus years of historical SCOTUS cumulative case law and the actual outlays BY YOUR CONGRESS ITSELF.

Also, you REALLY need to study up on the massive difference between social democracy (what I personally advocate), socialism, and communism, in all their different flavours (and there are MANY MANY types). All 3 are different things. You are conflating them horridly, mis-labelling, and in general making a hash of your definitions and attempted smears.

Your government has thousands (tens of thousands perhaps) of different programmes.You can rant on about it is not my problem if people want to get healthcare or go get a tertiary education, BUT you already have CONSTITUTIONALLY adjudged historical programmes for these things. The GI Bill post WWII for instance, that helped millions of soldiers coming home to obtain college degrees. The same for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security etc etc etc

You apparently have little to no knowledge of how utterly interlocked a nation-state's collective population is. YOU, yourself, have benefited tremendously from the contributions of other people who prospered and benefited at multiple levels because of government programmes (think trillions spent on science grants and programmes like NASA, etc), wealth redistribution and general empowerment of the populace.

Wealth inequality will destroy ANY and all nations (in terms of being a viable first world state) once it hits a critical mass. I will address this all in a detailed reply sometime this weekend.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Extreme hypothetical there :lol:

A. You shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them. 

B. You shouldn't have a mortgage if you can't afford it. (Thank god banks are more strict after the 2008 crises.) 

C. You shouldn't be working for a company that doesn't have workers comp. Which shouldn't be any as every business is required to have it in the States. 

 

So if I was working 2 jobs, had a mortgage, had 4 kids, got ill and worked for an employer that couldn't insure me if I got ill or injured, which all led to my house being foreclosed. I would say tough shit. No one's fault by my own. I shouldn't have planned my expenditures so naively and not plan ahead in case something like this would happen. 

 

What led to that, is a mixture of very bad decisions. So we as Americans, should be forced against our will, to pay for those people's bad decisions? Do you not see the moral objection with that? 

 

No. sorry.

I like the idea of helping those in need cause one day it might just be me.

How about if I didn't want my tax $$ spent on the military? i dont have the right to tell them I'm not paying my taxes cause i dont want us being involved in other countries problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Vesper said:

That said, you STILL do not grasp how American laws work. There is NO constitutional definition of what Congress cannot spend money on. 

When any mandate goes against the original US constitution, it's unconstitutional. The left want to change it whilst the right want to preserve it. 

44 minutes ago, Vesper said:

There are things they are mandated to spend  funds on, but their are no general prohibitions as to fiscal outays (other than it cannot establish a state religion). So you argument that somehow things you do not like are unconstitutional is ludicrous. It is absolute BOLLOCKS, as proven by 200 plus years of historical SCOTUS cumulative case law and the actual outlays BY YOUR CONGRESS ITSELF.

I am speaking of the original US Constitution. When you create laws that go against it, like what Obama did, is unconstitutional. 

Just because it was passed by congress, doesn't mean it's constitutional. The founding fathers didn't believe in a country that distributed wealth equally to others. So when you create a law that takes people's money and distributes it to others, it's unconstitutional. 

44 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Also, you REALLY need to study up on the massive difference between social democracy (what I personally advocate), socialism, and communism, in all their different flavours (and there are MANY MANY types). All 3 are different things. You are conflating them horridly, mis-labelling, and in general making a hash of your definitions and attempted smears.

I don't like socialism. What ever form. Because it deprives from the same basis. Distributing wealth. 

When 72% of Americans found Obama Care unconstitutional, yet it was still passed, shows the danger of government control. 

44 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Your government has thousands (tens of thousands perhaps) of different programmes.You can rant on about it is not my problem if people want to get healthcare or go get a tertiary education, BUT you already have CONSTITUTIONALLY adjudged historical programmes for these things. The GI Bill post WWII for instance, that helped millions of soldiers coming home to obtain college degrees. The same for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security etc etc etc

Just because we currently have socialist policies in place, doesn't mean we should go ahead and add more. 

That isn't an argument. 

44 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Wealth inequality will destroy ANY and all nations (in terms of being a viable first world state) once it hits a critical mass. I will address this all in a detailed reply sometime this weekend.

You're right. In order for the USA to be prosperous, they need to follow suit like Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Conveniently forgetting the massive culture difference and the fact each country has less population than the state of Texas. :lol:

41 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

No. sorry.

I like the idea of helping those in need cause one day it might just be me.

How about if I didn't want my tax $$ spent on the military? i dont have the right to tell them I'm not paying my taxes cause i dont want us being involved in other countries problems.

I do to. Hence why I donate my money to charities I see fit. 

If you don't want your tax $$ to go to the military, than you should be fine with the logic of having your home invaded and no one there to protect you. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.