Repeal and Replace, the elephant in the room: our free cheese faction

[johnwk]

If one does a little research regarding repeal and replacement of Obamacare, they will find countless articles asserting most Americans prefer Obamacare, e.g., see: Americans Prefer Obamacare (https://www.usnews.com/news/ken-walshs-washington/articles/2017-05-18/poll-americans-prefer-obamacare-over-gop-alternative)

May 18th, 2017

”Most Americans prefer the Democratic version of a health-care law to the Republican measure that's now under consideration in the Senate.

Fifty-three percent of Americans say they favor the Affordable Care Act, passed by Democrats under President Barack Obama, to the GOP's American Health-Care Act, passed recently by the GOP-controlled House. Only 27 percent prefer the Republican bill over the Democratic system, according to the latest survey by Public Policy Polling, a Democrat-oriented firm. This is similar to the findings of other recent polls.”

The big problem with these polls is, when these polls are taken, they include the opinions of lazy able bodied ticks and fleas who won’t work enough hours to pay for their own health-care needs who are receiving subsidized health-care under Obamacare, and also includes the opinions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders and are likewise receiving subsidized health-care which is paid for by tax-paying American citizens in addition to receiving other tax-payer finance “benefits”.

Is there any wonder why such a “poll” would end in a majority supporting a democrat style “free-cheese” health-care reform Bill? The fact is, our country’s cheese-eating faction is now at about 50 percent of the nation’s population, and it includes millions upon millions of lazy able bodied blood suckers who are too lazy to work enough hours to pay for their own economic needs. And this is the elephant in the room which our snowflake Republicans are unwilling to remove from our federal government’s free-cheese wagon. Snowflake Republicans in Congress are far more comfortable with raising taxes from hard working American citizens, so they can use such money to buy the votes of our nation’s free-cheese faction.

I want to see some statistics in which no one is polled who is having their health-insurance and/or health-care subsidized by tax payers. I suspect that the vast majority of American citizens who had privately funded health insurance before Obamacare came along, if polled today, would want to go back to what they had, and keep the federal government’s nose out of their health-care needs and choices. But when you mix the millions upon millions of U.S. residents into a poll who are having their health-care paid for by tax-payers, of course you are going to get very different numbers.

How about referencing a poll in which the tax-payer, and only the tax-payer ___ a poll excluding tax-getters ___ is represented?

JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

[Zippyjuan]

Can't find one broken down by taxpayers but I did find one which looks by income levels. It is flash so I can't copy the results here. Higher income is more likely paying more in taxes. Figures as of June, 2017.


$90,000 a year and more income: 52% are favorable to the Affordable Care Act, 44% unfavorable.

$40,000 to $90,000 a year, 48% favorable, 45% unfavorable

Less than $40,000 a year income: 54% favorable, 46% unfavorable

The question was not did they favor keeping or repealing or changing the Affordable Care Act but rather:


Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: The Public’s Views on the ACA
Jun 23, 2017


The public has remained deeply divided on the health reform law since it was passed in March 2010. Click below to examine how specific groups feel about the law and how those opinions have changed or not changed over time.

We asked: “As you may know, a health reform bill was signed into law in 2010. Given what you know about the health reform law, do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of it?”

http://www.kff.org/interactive/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-the-publics-views-on-the-aca/#?response=Favorable--Unfavorable&aRange=twoYear&group=Income::Less%2520than%2520%252440%252C000::% 252440%252C000-%252489%252C999::%252490%252C000%2520or%2520more

[johnwk]

Can't find one broken down by taxpayers but I did find one which looks by income levels.

Totally irrelevant to our free cheese faction.


JWK




There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless factions who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

[Zippyjuan]

Totally irrelevant to our free cheese faction.


JWK




Sorry. I thought the point was that people with more money and could buy their own insurance and pay more in taxes would not support Obamacare. It was the most relevant survey I could find though I agree it did not meet all of the conditions the post wanted. $90,000 a year puts you in the top 15%.


The big problem with these polls is, when these polls are taken, they include the opinions of lazy able bodied ticks and fleas who won’t work enough hours to pay for their own health-care needs who are receiving subsidized health-care under Obamacare

[johnwk]

I see our snowflake Republicans in the Senate cannot put their foot down and refuse to finance health-care for millions upon millions of able bodied individuals who won’t work enough hours to pay for their own health-care needs, and many more millions who are foreigners who likewise receive subsidized health-care which is paid for by hard working tax-paying American citizens.

When will our Republicans in Congress start protecting the interests of hard working American citizens, and cut the free cheese given to able bodied blood suckers who are too lazy to work for their own economic needs?

Have Republican members in Congress forgotten the United States government was created with a fundamental purpose which is eloquently stated as follows?


"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny." ___ See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=003/llac003.db&recNum=179)

Why are Republicans in the Senate determined to keep a system afloat based upon robbery, theft and tyranny!


JWK


"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Association v. Topeka,(1875).

[CaptUSA]

Isn't so great that we have two parties in Washington?! The "Free Cheese" party and the "Cheese for Free" party! Yay!

[TheCount]

Why are Republicans in the Senate determined to keep a system afloat based upon robbery, theft and tyranny! Because the free cheese faction votes, and represents a key part of the Republican base.

[tod evans]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a5/3d/35/a53d3595540c4a4b8e4a72c17f2eb186--molon-labe-tattoo-marine-tattoos.jpg

[johnwk]

Because the free cheese faction votes, and represents a key part of the Republican base.


If we don’t reverse our federal government’s tax-payers vs tax-getters redistribution policies, we will surely suffer the same fate as Venezuela, Chile, the UK, and other socialist countries which, instead of protecting the people’s inalienable right to succeed or fail at their own hand, have decided to use government force to steal the product of one person’s labor which is then transferred to another group to be used for their personal economic needs, which is an immoral use of government force.


JWK



They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use government force to steal and then enjoy the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create.

[tod evans]

Government 'employees' and pensioners are as bad or worse than the free-shit crowd.

There's an equal or greater number and they get bigger checks.

[fedupinmo]

Isn't so great that we have two parties in Washington?! The "Free Cheese" party and the "Cheese for Free" party! Yay!

https://i.imgflip.com/1shtsf.jpg

[r3volution 3.0]

Because the free cheese faction votes, and represents a key part of the Republican base.

There you have it.


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a5/3d/35/a53d3595540c4a4b8e4a72c17f2eb186--molon-labe-tattoo-marine-tattoos.jpg


What happens if a large majority of the voters are the tyrants?


If we don’t reverse our federal government’s tax-payers vs tax-getters redistribution policies, we will surely suffer the same fate as Venezuela, Chile, the UK, and other socialist countries which, instead of protecting the people’s inalienable right to succeed or fail at their own hand, have decided to use government force to steal the product of one person’s labor which is then transferred to another group to be used for their personal economic needs, which is an immoral use of government force.

Chile doesn't belong in that category.

You can thank a certain general who reversed its previously socialistic government's tax-payers vs tax-getters policies.

[euphemia]

Trump had some free-market ideas in the campaign. I wish Congress would get a clue that Trump didn't come to Washington to bow to them. No doubt Trump has written a business plan or two. He could probably write a bill if he wanted to. It would not be in polispeak mumbo jumbo, and it would be better than anything Congress can poop out.

Not overfond of Trump, but he signed on for this, and it's his job to make sure it gets done.

[agitator]

If we don’t reverse our federal government’s tax-payers vs tax-getters redistribution policies, we will surely suffer the same fate as Venezuela, Chile, the UK, and other socialist countries which, instead of protecting the people’s inalienable right to succeed or fail at their own hand, have decided to use government force to steal the product of one person’s labor which is then transferred to another group to be used for their personal economic needs, which is an immoral use of government force.


JWK



They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use government force to steal and then enjoy the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create.


He is fine with that, as are most the liberals here are.

[r3volution 3.0]

Trump had some free-market ideas in the campaign.

Like these?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwN6sU4onFQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-fgD8Xgg1Y

[Madison320]

Because the free cheese faction votes, and represents a key part of the Republican base.

Yes, but we've had this argument and you support the idea of people voting for free stuff. Yet the very thing you support you use as criticism of the republican party.

[tod evans]

What happens if a large majority of the voters are the tyrants?

The tree's still in need of refreshing.


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a5/3d/35/a53d3595540c4a4b8e4a72c17f2eb186--molon-labe-tattoo-marine-tattoos.jpg

[pcosmar]

Republicans have pushed Govt Health Care my whole life.

R Reagan kicked it into gear and all the arguments are about who gets the lion share of profits.
Never about eliminating it.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kOFhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6XQNAAAAIBAJ&dq=reagan%20california%20health%20care%20plan&pg=660%2C3403781

[johnwk]

Government 'employees' and pensioners are as bad or worse than the free-$#@! crowd.

There's an equal or greater number and they get bigger checks.



Federal Employee jobs and salary

See: A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies (https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/a)

Also see: Federal Jobs Overview (http://www.federaljobs.net/)

”Federal government jobs are available in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas jobs in 140 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, including pay plus benefits, exceeds $124,000 compared to just $61,051 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.”


Now tell me, who is the tax slave and who is the master?


JWK



If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon the federal government for its subsistence, (Obamacare) we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor, business and investors have worked to produce.

[phill4paul]

The tree's still in need of refreshing.


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a5/3d/35/a53d3595540c4a4b8e4a72c17f2eb186--molon-labe-tattoo-marine-tattoos.jpg

Unfortunately, that is not the whole quote. It's missing a certain element unwilling to pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." -TJ

[tod evans]

[B]Federal Employee [snip]


Now tell me, who is the tax slave and who is the master?




Nope!

Not playing..........And calling you out for being deceitful!

A "government employee" is anyone whose livelihood only exists due to taxation and that includes state, county and city/municipality 'employees' as well as feds.

Feds might get larger checks than state-n-county but they all encompass a greater liability than the bread-n-cheese crowd....Besides, they have government issued guns and qualified immunity in many cases....

[johnwk]

Nope!

Not playing..........And calling you out for being deceitful!

A "government employee" is anyone whose livelihood only exists due to taxation and that includes state, county and city/municipality 'employees' as well as feds.

Feds might get larger checks than state-n-county but they all encompass a greater liability than the bread-n-cheese crowd....Besides, they have government issued guns and qualified immunity in many cases....

I hope big brother didn't see my comments.


JWK

[tod evans]

I hope big brother didn't see my comments.


JWK

I post using my real name, they don't have to look too hard for me. :cool:

[TheCount]

Yes, but we've had this argument and you support the idea of people voting for free stuff.

Are you going to support this with some off-topic quotes again?

[H. E. Panqui]

...i wonder what percentage of 'the employed' are government employees?...aren't most/all teachers government employees?..most/all cops, judges/jailers?...most/all medical employees?...most/all military?....a large percentage of lawyers..etc. ad nauseam...

...it's confu$ing and frightening for republicrats to contemplate but it seems to me 'the employed' are bigger 'blood-$ucker$' than the unemployed....i'm with tod evans here...

...another issue involving 'our' gd miserable 'monetary order' at its core...very very very few republicrats have much of import to add here....

[phill4paul]

....i'm with tod evans here...

Ya ain't the only one. When the phrase "free cheese" comes to mind it is in the form of Government cheese.

[Madison320]

Are you going to support this with some off-topic quotes again?

Sure. Why not? :)



If you only allow net taxpayers to vote the minority won't be able to steal from the majority because they'll lose their voting privilege. It's self correcting.



They'll steal in indirect ways. Contracts to their companies and friends and whatnot. See the Russian oligarchs for an example.








How can you limit government power in a democracy where everyone can vote? It's impossible as far as I can tell. You can make rules but they'll eventually get eroded away by politicians that buy votes by stealing from the few to give to the many. You need to fundamentally change the election process to fix it.


No matter who you give the power of the vote, it's possible for them to erode the protections built into the government over time. I don't see how it would be different if it were a majority or minority of the population. Arguably, a small minority would have an easier time of working together in that direction.

[TheCount]

Sure. Why not? :)

Seriously, what the fuck?

Both of those quotes say that people can and likely will use the power of government to steal from others if they have the ability, not that they should or that it's a good thing.

Here's my previous post in the same thread:


When things go the other way, then the minority steals from the majority.

The solution is limitation of government power to prevent such theft, not implementation of reforms that just hand the weapons of government to the people that we deem most fit to utilize them against their neighbors.


I have no idea how you're managing to divine support for "the idea of people voting for free stuff" out of this. It's the exact opposite of what I said.

[Brian4Liberty]

I see our snowflake Republicans in the Senate cannot put their foot down and refuse to finance health-care for millions upon millions of able bodied individuals who won’t work enough hours to pay for their own health-care needs, and many more millions who are foreigners who likewise receive subsidized health-care which is paid for by hard working tax-paying American citizens.

When will our Republicans in Congress start protecting the interests of hard working American citizens, and cut the free cheese given to able bodied blood suckers who are too lazy to work for their own economic needs?

Have Republican members in Congress forgotten the United States government was created with a fundamental purpose which is eloquently stated as follows?
...

Why are Republicans in the Senate determined to keep a system afloat based upon robbery, theft and tyranny!


Crony corporatism.

[Zippyjuan]

Republicans have pushed Govt Health Care my whole life.

R Reagan kicked it into gear and all the arguments are about who gets the lion share of profits.
Never about eliminating it.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kOFhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6XQNAAAAIBAJ&dq=reagan%20california%20health%20care%20plan&pg=660%2C3403781

Nixon too. A lot of this may sound familiar (though some of the dollar figures are): https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2015/11/the-nixon-comprehensive-health-insurance-plan/


On February 6, 1974, President Nixon presented his Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, or CHIP, to Congress in an effort to outline and define his intentions for a health care reform program that would go into effect in 1976. At the beginning of his report, he explains that overall healthcare costs have risen over 20% since 1971, and that the standing average cost of a day-long hospital stay is over $110. On top of the rising cost of healthcare, over 25 million Americans were still uninsured in 1974. 40% of Americans who were insured were not covered for visits to a physician’s office on an outpatient basis, and very few private health care policies covered preventative services. Furthermore, less than half of Americans under the age of 65 and almost none of Americans over the age of 65 had major medical health coverage.

Nixon’s plan was designed to ensure that doctors were incentivized to work for their patient, not for the federal government or insurance companies. CHIP required no new federal taxes as all parties – consumer, provider, insurer, state government and federal government – had a direct stake in making this system work. There were three branches of health care available within Nixon’s plan: Employee Health Insurance, Assisted Health Insurance, and an improved version of Medicare. Employee Health Insurance would cover most Americans and offered at their place of employment. The cost would be shared between the employer and employee to reduce the financial burden on either side. Assisted Health Insurance was designed for low-income persons where the federal and state governments would pay any healthcare costs beyond what the insured individual could pay. An improved Medicare plan would cover Americans who were age 65 and over through a modified system that provided additional benefits. One of these three plans would be available to every American, but participation in the program was voluntary.

The benefits of each plan were identical for all Americans, regardless of age or economic status. These benefits would cover hospital stays, physician care, prescription medications, and medical devices as well as other necessary care. There would be no exclusion of coverage based on the nature of the illness or a preexisting condition. CHIP would also cover treatment for mental illness, alcoholism or addiction regardless of where the treatment is administered.

Nixon also argued that many conditions were preventable from an early age, therefore children should be included in the health care plan. This included preventative care up to age six, eye and hearing examinations, and regular dental care for children age 13 and younger. No family would be asked to pay more than $1,500 per year for out-of-pocket expenses, and low income families would pay even less.

CHIP mandated that Employee Health Insurance would be required to offer all full-time employees health coverage, while additional coverage benefits could be added if mutually agreed upon. Coverage would be jointly financed, where the employer would pay 65% of the premiums for the first three years, then 75% thereafter. Employees would pay the balance of the premiums, and federal subsidies would be provided to ease the cost burden.

Assisted Health Insurance was designed for any American who were unemployed, self-employed, disabled, or were low income. Under this plan, premiums, out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles would be relative to the income of the family enrolled. For example, working families with an income of less than $5,000 would pay no premiums at all. Higher income Americans could also acquire Assisted Health Insurance if other coverage plans offered unreasonable rates.

To improve the Medicare system, Nixon pointed out that Medicare, as it stood, did not cover outpatient drugs or provide any sort of limit for total out-of-pocket costs. CHIP proposed to offer the same benefits provided for others under the Employee Health Insurance and Assisted Health Insurance programs to those covered by Medicare. The limit on out-of-pocket costs would be capped at $750, while public funds would cover the difference for premiums for those with low incomes. In addition, the current Medicare program for the disabled would be replaced by Assisted Health Insurance, which would provide better coverage for those with a low income but high medical costs.

[Madison320]

Seriously, what the $#@!?

Both of those quotes say that people can and likely will use the power of government to steal from others if they have the ability, not that they should or that it's a good thing.

Here's my previous post in the same thread:




I have no idea how you're managing to divine support for "the idea of people voting for free stuff" out of this. It's the exact opposite of what I said.

So now you support the idea of only allowing net taxpayers to vote?

While we're on the topic do you agree that while republicans also vote for free stuff, it's the democratic party's core principle.

[DamianTV]

...

What happens if a large majority of the voters are the tyrants?

...

That is the reason our type of govt was a Republic and not a Democracy. Yes, both forms of govt have the potential to become ruinous to their own ends, but in a Democracy, you do have tyranny by the majority of the people against all minorities. Just depends on which issue will divide which people to which sides.

[TheCount]

So now you support the idea of only allowing net taxpayers to vote?

Totally neutral on it. As I said, I don't think that it would fix the things that you think that it would fix. I don't see the benefit.



While we're on the topic do you agree that while republicans also vote for free stuff, it's the democratic party's core principle.

No, I would say that it is the core principle of both parties, with the major difference being who gets the free stuff.

Republicans seem to think that the government itself should get the free stuff, whereas the Democrats think that the people should get free stuff. In both case the free stuff comes at the expense of the people.

[Madison320]

Totally neutral on it. As I said, I don't think that it would fix the things that you think that it would fix. I don't see the benefit.




No, I would say that it is the core principle of both parties, with the major difference being who gets the free stuff.

Republicans seem to think that the government itself should get the free stuff, whereas the Democrats think that the people should get free stuff. In both case the free stuff comes at the expense of the people.

Slick.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Slick.

Core principle.

[johnwk]

So now you support the idea of only allowing net taxpayers to vote?

While we're on the topic do you agree that while republicans also vote for free stuff, it's the democratic party's core principle.


I would like to see a “poll” in which only those who pay federal income tax, i.e., a poll in which the tax payer and only the tax payer is represented. Would they prefer our federal government adhereing to our federal Constitution and limiting its taxing and spending to finance the list which appears beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1?

The defined and limited powers listed beneath Article 1, Section 8. Clause 1, for which Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, is as follows:

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


The list does not include providing for the health-care needs of the people within the various United States.

JWK




"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, [to finance their health-care needs] to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka,(1875).

[tod evans]

I would like to see a “poll” in which only those who pay federal income tax, i.e., a poll in which the tax payer and only the tax payer is represented.

I'd like to stipulate that government employees and pensioners do not "pay federal tax" when their check is drawn from the taxes of the productive...

That 'deduction' shown on their pay-stub is only there as a joke, to make them feel like a actual working man.

[Zippyjuan]

Constitution also says nothing about immigration or having an air force.

[johnwk]

Constitution also says nothing about immigration or having an air force.

:rolleyes:

There is no question our founders intended to authorize Congress with power to provide our country with a modern up-to-date military and equipment, which would include an air force.

What you are missing is, not only is the text of our Constitution to be followed, but its documented "legislative intent" as expressed during our Constitution's framing and ratification debates which gives context to its text.


To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



Do the above powers not confirm our founders intended to provide for a modern up-to-date military and equipment, which would include an air force?


Stop being absurd!


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

[Swordsmyth]

Constitution also says nothing about immigration or having an air force.


:rolleyes:

There is no question our founders intended to authorize Congress with power to provide our country with a modern up-to-date military and equipment, which would include an air force.

What you are missing is, not only is the text of our Constitution to be followed, but its documented "legislative intent" as expressed during our Constitution's framing and ratification debates which gives context to its text.


To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



Do the above powers not confirm our founders intended to provide for a modern up-to-date military and equipment, which would include an air force?


Stop being absurd!


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


For Constitutional purposes an Air Force is just a different kind of Army.

[Zippyjuan]

I concede the point. The air force is legal. What about immigration? Is it listed in the Constitution? If not, does that mean that it is unconstitutional for the government to create laws governing immigration- allowing it or restricting it?

[Swordsmyth]

I concede the point. The air force is legal. What about immigration? Is it listed in the Constitution? If not, does that mean that it is unconstitutional for the government to create laws governing immigration- allowing it or restricting it?

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.

[johnwk]

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.

You beat me to the punch!

Good work!


JWK

[johnwk]

I concede the point. The air force is legal. What about immigration? Is it listed in the Constitution? If not, does that mean that it is unconstitutional for the government to create laws governing immigration- allowing it or restricting it?


How does that question relate to the subject of the thread which is, Repeal and Replace, the elephant in the room: our free cheese faction?


JWK

[Noob]

Maybe they should just take Medicaid out of the Obamacare repeal bill and put it in it's own bill.

[Madison320]

I would like to see a “poll” in which only those who pay federal income tax, i.e., a poll in which the tax payer and only the tax payer is represented. Would they prefer our federal government adhereing to our federal Constitution and limiting its taxing and spending to finance the list which appears beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1?



That would be interesting. One thing I know for sure is that, in general, the more tax you are forced to pay, the more you are likely to favor smaller government.

[Zippyjuan]

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.

Referred to the importation of slaves, not immigration. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-9


Section 9 - The Meaning
Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808.

What was the point? The claim was raised that healthcare is not specifically listed in the Constitution. The Constitution doe not list every possible law or category of laws. Its intent was to establish the structure of government and determine how those people are to be selected (and in some cases removed) and what powers they should have. So if "not specifically listed in the Constitution" means illegal, then any laws concerning immigration (aside from the importation of slaves) must also be illegal since it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution either.

[Swordsmyth]

Referred to the importation of slaves, not immigration. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-9

Read the words Zippy not some stupid "interpretation", slaves may be imported they do not MIGRATE, and migration is listed FIRST as the primary item being protected from restriction UNTIL 1808.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Swordsmyth http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6499470#post6499470)
Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.






What was the point? The claim was raised that healthcare is not specifically listed in the Constitution. The Constitution doe not list every possible law or category of laws. Its intent was to establish the structure of government and determine how those people are to be selected (and in some cases removed) and what powers they should have. So if "not specifically listed in the Constitution" means illegal, then any laws concerning immigration (aside from the importation of slaves) must also be illegal since it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution either.

Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Zippyjuan]

Read the words Zippy not some stupid "interpretation", slaves may be imported they do not MIGRATE, and migration is listed FIRST as the primary item being protected from restriction UNTIL 1808.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Swordsmyth http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6499470#post6499470)
Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.







Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/19/why-the-migration-or-importation-clause-of-the-constitution-does-not-imply-any-general-federal-power-to-limit-immigration/?utm_term=.040cea14ee22


Why the Migration or Importation Clause of the Constitution does not imply any general federal power to restrict immigration


Some readers of my recent Reason op ed arguing that, under the original meaning of the Constitution, Congress had no general power over immigration, have written to me, pointing to the Migration or Importation Clause as evidence to the contrary. Some modern advocates of broad congressional power over immigration also cite it to support their position. But, at least under the original meaning of the Constitution, it does not.

The Migration or Importation Clause states that “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” In and of itself, the Clause does not grant Congress any additional authority. To the contrary, it is a limitation on power. However, it could be argued that the limitation on congressional power to prohibit “migration or importation” of persons until 1808 implies that Congress had such a power to begin with. The word “migration” suggests that that power extended to the prohibition of voluntary immigration, as well as the importation of slaves, which the Migration or Importation Clause was intended to protect.

But the inclusion of the term “migration” was not meant to imply a general federal power to restrict migration, but was a euphemism intended to bolster the pretense that the Constitution did not endorse slavery. As John Jay – the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and coauthor of the Federalist Papers – pointed out in an 1819 letter discussing the Clause:

It will, I presume, be admitted that slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, probably on account of the existing toleration of slavery and of its discordance with the principles of the Revolution, and from a consciousness of its being repugnant to the following positions in the Declaration of Independence, viz.: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”

James Madison similarly argued that the Clause was intended to protect the slave trade against limitation prior to 1808, and that its phrasing was due to “scruples against admitting the term ‘slaves’ into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase ‘migration or importation of persons;’ the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the same term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country.” This suggests it is likely that the term “migration” was included only in order to avoid direct reference to slavery, and did not imply any general congressional power to restrict migration. In Federalist 42, Madison decried “[a]ttempts [that] have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it…as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America.”

Even if the Clause does imply a power to limit the “migration” of some voluntary arrivals, it does not follow that Congress was assumed to have a general power to forbid immigration. In addition to the importation of slaves, indentured servants were also commonly brought into the country during the colonial era and the early republic. Unlike slaves, indentured servants came of their own free will, and therefore might not be described merely as “imported.” But their passage was paid for by employers in America, and the indentured servants were thereafter required to work for them for several years to pay off their debt. The transportation of indentured servants across the Atlantic on the basis of indenture contracts paid for by Americans was considered an international commercial transaction subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. Indeed, eighteenth century Americans often did in fact consider indentured servants to be “articles of commerce,” and therefore within the scope of the commerce power, even though their migration was voluntary.

During the Founding era, the Foreign Commerce Clause was generally interpreted to give Congress power to regulate the international shipment of articles of commerce (including slaves and indentured servants), but not to forbid mere migration, as such. Similarly, the interstate Commerce Clause was not understood to give Congress the power to forbid the migration of Americans from one state to another. The Constitution literally uses the same phrase to cover both, giving Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.” What is true of the interstate commerce goose must also be true of the foreign commerce gander.

The migration provision of the Migration or Importation Clause therefore was likely either a euphemism intended to avoid referring to slaves, or a tool for preventing Congress from using the Foreign Commerce Clause to ban or heavily tax the in-migration of indentured servants until 1808. At the very least, its language does not require us to conclude that Congress had any general power to regulate migration, as opposed to a few subsets of migrants whose activities come within the scope of Congress’ other enumerated powers.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/19/why-the-migration-or-importation-clause-of-the-constitution-does-not-imply-any-general-federal-power-to-limit-immigration/?utm_term=.040cea14ee22
Interpretative nonsense.
Slaves do not MIGRATE, IMPORTATION was mentioned separately, and to prohibit congress a power until 1808 is to give it to them after 1808.
Indentured servants don't help you because if congress can control them they can control any immigrants since they come of their own free will.

[Noob]

They are making changes to the bill and holdouts are now becoming yes votes.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/20/sen-bob-corker-support-repeal-and-delay-obamacare/495176001/

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/20/cbo-senate-obamacare-replacement-lead-to-xx-more-uninsured-americans.html

[Noob]

Rand Paul opens door to backing healthcare bill on key hurdle

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/342981-rand-paul-opens-door-to-backing-healthcare-bill-on-key-hurdle

[Zippyjuan]

Rand Paul opens door to backing healthcare bill on key hurdle

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/342981-rand-paul-opens-door-to-backing-healthcare-bill-on-key-hurdle

From there:


With McCain absent and all other 99 senators voting, McConnell can only afford to lose one GOP senator.

[johnwk]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/19/why-the-migration-or-importation-clause-of-the-constitution-does-not-imply-any-general-federal-power-to-limit-immigration/?utm_term=.040cea14ee22

I see you have not commented on the article you posted. Why post an article if you are unwilling to articulate why you posted the article, and what exactly is one to glean from the article in reference to the present discussion?


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

I see you have not commented on the article you posted. Why post an article if you are unwilling to articulate why you posted the article, and what exactly is one to glean from the article in reference to the present discussion?


JWK

It was in response to Swordsmith's post which is why I quoted the post. I felt the article explained it.