Obamacare Constitutional

[carguym14]

http://fox8.com/2012/06/28/supreme-c...e-law-xxxxxxx/


June 28, 2012 — The Supreme Court rules that the individual mandate portion of the health care law may be upheld within Congress’ power under the taxing clause

[V guy]

Individual mandate is unconstitutional; cannot MAKE you buy health ins.

It is legal, however, to tax you if you do not buy health ins; that tax will likely be repealed.

The 26 states that sued in the court case are exonerated.
They DO NOT have to expand their medicaid rolls--that includes New Jersey and Fla.

That effectively kills the bastard bill, dead in its tracks.
Illegals, the poor, the working poor are out of health care coverage. The middle class will be freed of the tax within a year. It is DOA.

I gotta say that Chief Justice Roberts got to have his cake and eat it too!!
One clever sob!!

[carguym14]

Should make Romney happy.

[2barearms]

I agree with V Guy it ain't over yet, they have however given both sides
ammo for the election. The real problem now is that the left has a swing
vote on SC.

[hellfish]

I recently asked my neighbors' little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be a President. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do? ' She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.' Her parents beamed with pride 'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have to wait until you're a President to do that! You can come over to my house to mow the lawn, pull weeds, trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.' She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50? ' I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.' Her parents still aren't speaking to me...

[308bolt]

Originally Posted by carguym14

Should make Romney happy.

Yeah, it gives him something to overturn.

[Gary Harwell]

V guy +1

I think Roberts is smiling like the cat that ate the canary. I think he remembered the State of the the Union a couple of years ago when Obama
spit on him, figuratively. Smart, smart man. If O is defeated because of this, Roberts will become a patriot in posterity one day. If he is re-elected, we are finished much sooner,but finished nonetheless.

[homelandprotector]

Originally Posted by W.E.G.

How much is this going to cost, and who is going to pay for it?

I got a pony for Christmas.
Now I want a farm to ride it on.

Who would have guessed.....hospital stocks are tumbling.

The greatest medical achievement in the world will now die. everything this pResident does fucks/us even more.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47994090

Stocks extended their losses Thursday, wiping out all of the previous session's gains, amid skepticism that European leaders would be able to form a solution to tackle the ongoing debt crisis and following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the health-care bill.

[carguym14]

Originally Posted by W.E.G.

How much is this going to cost, and who is going to pay for it?

I got a pony for Christmas.
Now I want a farm to ride it on.

What are you rambling on about??

It's FREE healthcare.freefreefreefreefreefreefreefree!!!!

[carguym14]

Originally Posted by 308bolt

Yeah, it gives him something to overturn.

Haven't seen any comments to the decision from him yet-he's probably still trying to figure out what the majority think about it first..............

[martin35]

A vote for Ron Paul should have even greater insignificance now.
Who let the dogs out?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPI1nAqkpLQ
The question now should be will Obama have greater "flexibility" after the elections as he has promised the Russians?
Or will the useful idiots prevail,,, again?

[ronpaulFAL]

Originally Posted by W.E.G.

How much is this going to cost, and who is going to pay for it?

I got a pony for Christmas.
Now I want a farm to ride it on.

You'll find out once we start printing money to pay for it.

I'm not worried. It can still be repealed, but must be done quickly.

[Hoot G]

So they can tax me if I drink a beer, or buy gasoline, or sell anything, and now they can tax me if I don't do whatever they decide they want me to do?

Goodbye United Sates of America; hello Fascist State of America.

RIP USA 1776-2012

[xtremerange]

As of 1220 ET, hospitals up big. From CNBC http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hea...ing-2012-06-28

Among hospital stocks, Community Health Systems Inc. CYH +8.79% surged 11%, HCA Holdings Inc. HCA +9.02% rallied 7.6%, Tenet Healthcare Corp. THC +8.23% rose 8% and Health Management Associates Inc. HMA +8.72% gained 9%.

Shares of Medicaid-focused insurance companies posted strong gains, with Wellcare Health Plans Inc. WCG +9.01% up 9%, Molina Healthcare Inc. MOH +3.66% up 4% and Amerigroup Corp. AGP +5.58% up 4.4%.

However, private death panel companies are down probably thinking the public death panels will put them out of business.

Shares of large, commercial insurers declined, however, with Aetna Inc. AET -3.15% down 4.9%, WellPoint Inc. WLP -5.47% down 6.3% and Cigna Corp. CI -3.88% down 4.3%.

[EPC WN]

This is the best thing to happen to Romney. It gives him something that he and Obama disagree on. An actual difference. The campaign for the presidency just began TODAY.

[308bolt]

Originally Posted by martin35

A vote for Ron Paul should have even greater insignificance now.
Who let the dogs out?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPI1nAqkpLQ
The question now should be will Obama have greater "flexibility" after the elections as he has promised the Russians?
Or will the useful idiots prevail,,, again?

I'm sure one of the sets of useful idiots either Rs or Ds will prevail.

[308bolt]

Originally Posted by EPC WN

This is the best thing to happen to Romney. It gives him something that he and Obama disagree on. An actual difference. The campaign for the presidency just began TODAY.

I was thinking the same thing.
Willard's signature issue.
Forget the economy, immigration, the national debt, etc., etc.
This is what the election will now be about.

[DJL]

I might be a pessimist but I think it is a long shot to win the Presidency, the Senate and Congress and have enough of a margin of conservative republicans to repeal the tax. I think Romney has doubts also...in his speech he said he would "Act" to repeal the bill...just saying...I fear we are stuck with this. The equation is no different with a Ron Paul Presidency...this is a bad day.

[ronpaulFAL]

Originally Posted by 308bolt

I was thinking the same thing.
Willard's signature issue.
Forget the economy, immigration, the national debt, etc., etc.
This is what the election will now be about.

I'm sure Mittens is happy. Now he can avoid ever having to propose logical solutions to these serious problems.

[EPC WN]

Originally Posted by DJL

I might be a pessimist but I think it is a long shot to win the Presidency, the Senate and Congress and have enough of a margin of conservative republicans to repeal the tax. I think Romney has doubts also...in his speech he said he would "Act" to repeal the bill...just saying...I fear we are stuck with this. The equation is no different with a Ron Paul Presidency...this is a bad day.

Romney may back peddle if elected. But he sure as hell just found his current soap box. Just remember the public has gotten mad about presidents lying in the past. But that's all. Nothing ever gets done about it.

[carguym14]

I love the circular logic:


In the ruling, the high court decided the most controversial provision -- the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance -- is valid as a tax, even though it is impermissible under the Constitution's commerce clause.

"In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

He later added: "The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. ... The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."



Read more: http://www.kcci.com/news/politics/Ob...#ixzz1z7WiNtV3

[TheDanimal]

Originally Posted by DJL

I might be a pessimist but I think it is a long shot to win the Presidency, the Senate and Congress and have enough of a margin of conservative republicans to repeal the tax. I think Romney has doubts also...in his speech he said he would "Act" to repeal the bill...just saying...I fear we are stuck with this. The equation is no different with a Ron Paul Presidency...this is a bad day.

Are those the same conservative republicans that consistently vote for more government?

[V guy]

I have been through the whole decision, and it is tough reading.

7-2 against the Medicaid expansion.
5-4 against the Individual mandate.

Wierd for sure. Roberts was both for, and against.
The power to tax, is generally, unfettered.

To tax, is a government policy.
The cigarette tax is case in point. $4.00 a pack in NY.
Gasoline taxes, sales taxes; Moonshine taxes, are more of the same.
"Policy."

Plenty of people say that the above taxes are illegal, but they are just bad policy.

Roberts said that bad and unfair policy is just that; not necessarily illegal.
The power to tax those who do not buy health ins--like the cigarette tax, is just bad policy, and unfair to many.

The commies minority opinion, on the individual mandate's legality, essentially said, that the Commerce Clause allows the constitution to be ignored entirely, and you bastards are serfs; and have to eat broccoli if Congress says so.
The commies loosing argument, agreed that the individual mandate or its penalty for not buying ins, was not a tax, but a mandatory payment toward all health care.

Roberts cleverly got limits on the Commerce Clause--to set it up for a coup, d grace, later on.

The medicaid expansion, ruled as unconstitutional, 7-2, is now law.
When Medicare exists and so does medicaid, how can the expansion be illegal?

Anyway, the obamacare medicaid expansion by force, is now unconstitutional and it shitcans Obamacare for the ages.
Stte Insurance Exchanges, WILL NOT BE SET UP, and 40 states will opt out. Obama lost big time on that. It kills the bill.

There was a conservative opinion that said not only was the individual mandate illegal, but that the whole damn act was unconstitutional and insane.

Roberts got the Act shitcanned.

Watch Obama now attack, and decide that all states must ignore the SCOTUS decision; and he will act to forcibly implement the medicaid expansion, by some very very bad actions.

[FAL freek]

Obumbler announced his support for the perverts to gain traction, not much controversy there, he then announced amnesty for illegals to garner support in swing states. Now the SC says the bribery of Sinators and Congresscritters to pass his edicts is okay. He now has his platform to campaign with in November.

[Right Side Up]

Roberts is trying to help Obama lose the election, and I think he struck a blow. Now that O's plan is a *GO* and the taxes are real, people will think.

[EPC WN]

+1. I said this in another thread. That's exactly what's up.

[carguym14]

Originally Posted by Right Side Up

Roberts is trying to help Obama lose the election, and I think he struck a blow. Now that O's plan is a *GO* and the taxes are real, people will think.

Who's gonna think??

The almost half the population not paying in sucking the teat?Why would they care?Will the illegals pay more?The welfare recipients?

And it doesn't even start until 2014.

[357ross]

Originally Posted by V guy

Individual mandate is unconstitutional; cannot MAKE you buy health ins.

It is legal, however, to tax you if you do not buy health ins; that tax will likely be repealed.

The 26 states that sued in the court case are exonerated.
They DO NOT have to expand their medicaid rolls--that includes New Jersey and Fla.

That effectively kills the bastard bill, dead in its tracks.
Illegals, the poor, the working poor are out of health care coverage. The middle class will be freed of the tax within a year. It is DOA.

I gotta say that Chief Justice Roberts got to have his cake and eat it too!!
One clever sob!!

I'm not following your logic. You better believe this WILL go forward whether we like it or not. The tax increase was the most important part for the democraps, as they are counting on more money, as they have already spent it. How in the hell any 'justice' ruled this monstrosity constitutional is absolutly beyond me. There must be a way to recall these 'judges'.

[genethepoolcleaner]

Originally Posted by W.E.G.

This pony doesn't like me very much.

I want a DIFFERENT pony.

W.E.G Is going to get the bologna pony. GTPC

[Mark IV]

If Mitt does get elected, maybe he should just executive order obamacare out of existence.

If it is repealed, I bet the zulu nation goes apesh!t.

[juanni]

I am dumfounded.
I thought the main reason we elected Bush was because he was going to appoint conservative justices???
Remember it was all about the SC.



















Suckers.




..............juanni

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by juanni

I am dumfounded.
I thought the main reason we elected Bush was because he was going to appoint conservative justices???
Remember it was all about the SC.



Suckers.




..............juanni

Finally.

Someone said what I've been thinking all day, while away from the 'puter.

Go Mitt!! Let's have some more rock-ribbed conservatives like Roberts!

[V guy]

Roberts got a chance to shitcan the commerce clause and use the libs to do it for him.

Nothing is free in life and Roberts choose his war and battle well.

He obviously got an agreement with the libs to declare the individual mandate dead if it was ok with them to call it a tax, which it is.

Is it a legal tax? It shore is now, but the libs gave up the expansion of the commerce clause to save Obamacare.

I say it is brilliant strategy because it threw the whole Obamacare back in the laps of Congress and the People to deal with--as it should have--- and killed a major argument to further enslave us in the future with the commerce clause that Shumer and commies love.

Whats more the argument that SCOTUS is poison after giving the election to Bush in 2000 is now pretty muted. SCOTUS got a more solid appearance after today. Too bad that Congress and the people got the shit back in their face and have to throw Obama out and have Congress shitcan the Obamacare bill. That is the way is has to be, it saved the court and put reponsibility back where it had to be;

And the libs lost 3 ways today.

1. They lost on the Commerce Clause expansion
2. The Medicaide expansion is dead in 26 states--effectively killing the bill.
3. The individual mandate is a tax and it can be repealed--it is not a f****** human right to have health ins now.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by V guy

Roberts got a chance to shitcan the commerce clause and use the libs to do it for him.

Nothing is free in life and Roberts choose his war and battle well.

He obviously got an agreement with the libs to declare the individual mandate dead if it was ok with them to call it a tax, which it is.

Is it a legal tax? It shore is now, but the libs gave up the expansion of the commerce clause to save Obamacare.

I say it is brilliant strategy because it threw the whole Obamacare back in the laps of Congress and the People to deal with--as it should have--- and killed a major argument to further enslave us in the future with the commerce clause that Shumer and commies love.

Whats more the argument that SCOTUS is poison after giving the election to Bush in 2000 is now pretty muted. SCOTUS got a more solid appearance after today. Too bad that Congress and the people got the shit back in their face and have to throw Obama out and have Congress shitcan the Obamacare bill. That is the way is has to be, it saved the court and put reponsibility back where it had to be;

And the libs lost 3 ways today.

1. They lost on the Commerce Clause expansion
2. The Medicaide expansion is dead in 26 states--effectively killing the bill.
3. The individual mandate is a tax and it can be repealed--it is not a f****** human right to have health ins now.

[Skilter]

I think what is lost here ist the fact that Justice R protected states rights and made REAL CLEAR what the Interstate Commercece clause can do. This is GOOD for gun owners.

[DJL]

1. They lost on the Commerce Clause expansion
2. The Medicaide expansion is dead in 26 states--effectively killing the bill.
3. The individual mandate is a tax and it can be repealed--it is not a f****** human right to have health ins now.

1. I agree

2. The feds can work around that if they get creative and have the support.

3. We still need complete control of the Senate, the House and the Presidency....still a tall order...November is a long time to forget. Plus he have all these new voters from Mexico....

[Mebsuta]

They probly made JR an offer he couldn't refuse.

[Otis Treekiller]

The individual mandate penalty is not a tax; it is a penalty exactly as described in the legislation. It cannot be a tax because by rule all revenue bills must originate in the House and this law was written completely and entirely in the Senate and never went to conference to be resolved with a House bill. Remember "deemed as passed"?

Tax policy has been used to influence behavior, usually in the form of credits or refunds of an existing tax for specific actions deemed worthwhile (or as a favor to special interests), or "sin taxes" that generally are levied at the state level.

But this is not a tax, it is a metaphorical bludgeon providing a consequence for not doing as you're told by government. It is just as likely to get bigger as be repealed as government seeks to improve it's effectiveness.

[JasonB]

Originally Posted by V guy

Roberts got a chance to shitcan the commerce clause and use the libs to do it for him.

Nothing is free in life and Roberts choose his war and battle well.

He obviously got an agreement with the libs to declare the individual mandate dead if it was ok with them to call it a tax, which it is.

Is it a legal tax? It shore is now, but the libs gave up the expansion of the commerce clause to save Obamacare.

I say it is brilliant strategy because it threw the whole Obamacare back in the laps of Congress and the People to deal with--as it should have--- and killed a major argument to further enslave us in the future with the commerce clause that Shumer and commies love.

Whats more the argument that SCOTUS is poison after giving the election to Bush in 2000 is now pretty muted. SCOTUS got a more solid appearance after today. Too bad that Congress and the people got the shit back in their face and have to throw Obama out and have Congress shitcan the Obamacare bill. That is the way is has to be, it saved the court and put reponsibility back where it had to be;

And the libs lost 3 ways today.

1. They lost on the Commerce Clause expansion
2. The Medicaide expansion is dead in 26 states--effectively killing the bill.
3. The individual mandate is a tax and it can be repealed--it is not a f****** human right to have health ins now.

Way back when the 2003 drug bill (R) passed that was fine and dandy, just a ruse to appear non-partisan, because the supreme Court was going to toss it out. Every time I read your posts that comes to mind.

[TNAndy]

The thing that SUCKS so thoroughly about this health care fiasco is it slithered past each barrier with the slimmest margin possible. Only one party supported it. In the House of Representatives, it won by 3 votes out of 435. In the Senate, it took all 60 votes to stop the filibuster with zero margin. The supreme court ruled 5 to 4.

We are all screwed.

[JasonB]

Originally Posted by TNAndy

The thing that SUCKS so thoroughly about this health care fiasco is it slithered past each barrier with the slimmest margin possible. Only one party supported it. In the House of Representatives, it won by 3 votes out of 435. In the Senate, it took all 60 votes to stop the filibuster with zero margin. The supreme court ruled 5 to 4.

We are all screwed.

You mean openly supported it. If in doubt, peruse the similar law passed 9 years ago I mentioned a couple of posts up.

[TNAndy]

Originally Posted by JasonB

You mean openly supported it. If in doubt, peruse the similar law passed 9 years ago I mentioned a couple of posts up.

I'll agree that there are far too many spineless, liberal RINOs in Washington. Worse, for there to be any chance whatsoever to repeal ObamaTAXcare, we have little choice other than to elect yet another RINO President.

I'm thoroughly disgusted, and I stand by my earlier statement: WE ARE ALL SCREWED!

[JasonB]

Originally Posted by TNAndy

I'll agree that there are far too many spineless, liberal RINOs in Washington. Worse, for there to be any chance whatsoever to repeal ObamaTAXcare, we have little choice other than to elect yet another RINO President.

I'm thoroughly disgusted, and I stand by my earlier statement: WE ARE ALL SCREWED!

Liberals and conservatives have also always been essentially the same thing with any differences being so fine as to be insignificant.

http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf

What you are saying is "I want a different outcome, so I am going to do the same thing that has already been done".

[DABTL]

The court ruled on the ACA using the lowest level of law in its opinion.

It did not rule on the interstate commerce clause and it is not precedent for any such ruling. It is called dicta. Meaning just loose verbage.

This should not have been a close call based on precedent. What it shows is activist judges have been the political stock in trade of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

Wing nut insanity on this was best put forth by Michael Savage when he suggested epilepsy medicine made Roberts come to his opinion.

You may go back to wringing your hands and weeping about freedom.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by DABTL

The court ruled on the ACA using the lowest level of law in its opinion.

It did not rule on the interstate commerce clause and it is not precedent for any such ruling. It is called dicta. Meaning just loose verbage.

This should not have been a close call based on precedent. What it shows is activist judges have been the political stock in trade of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

Wing nut insanity on this was best put forth by Michael Savage when he suggested epilepsy medicine made Roberts come to his opinion.

You may go back to wringing your hands and weeping about freedom.

[carguym14]

So we don't have to eat our peas,but if we don't,we can be taxed.

I'm sure this ruling will stop big government in it's tracks,and we aren't on a fast moving slippery down escalator.


Another victory for freedom and liberty (say the spin doctors).



From the irony department-go a letter today that might health insurance is going up again (third time since the healthcare act passed).I have a catastrophic policy with a high deducutible I have never used.I'll probably just cancel it and pay the fine for awhile......

[alant]

Originally Posted by V guy

Roberts got a chance to shitcan the commerce clause and use the libs to do it for him.

Didn't read the dissenting opinions didya. All 4 liberal justices said they supported the commerce clause argument, only the 5 conservative judges said it was faulty. The liberals didn't "help" Roberts one bit.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/mo...t-the-commerce
The other four members of the majority—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—did not join this part of Roberts' opinion, since they have no such reservations about an all-encompassing Commerce Clause.

You can read the actual decision and dissenting opinions here :
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Se..._msnbc.com.pdf

Starting at page 66 Ginsburg writes and the other 3 agree that:
JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins, and with whom JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN join as to Parts I, II, III, and IV, concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part.
. . .
Unlike THE CHIEF JUSTICE, however, I would hold, alternatively, that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to enact the minimum coverage provision. I would also hold that the Spending Clause permits the Medicaid expansion exactly as Congress enacted it.

Originally Posted by V guy

Nothing is free in life and Roberts choose his war and battle well.

He obviously got an agreement with the libs to declare the individual mandate dead if it was ok with them to call it a tax, which it is.

They agreed that it is a tax, they disagreed with his opinion that it was not justified under the commerce clause or that the mandate is dead - see their opinion above.

Originally Posted by V guy

Is it a legal tax? It shore is now, but the libs gave up the expansion of the commerce clause to save Obamacare.

Nope, they are waiting for the next conservative judge to retire and be replaced by a re-elected Obama.

Originally Posted by V guy

Whats more the argument that SCOTUS is poison after giving the election to Bush in 2000 is now pretty muted. SCOTUS got a more solid appearance after today. Too bad that Congress and the people got the shit back in their face and have to throw Obama out and have Congress shitcan the Obamacare bill. That is the way is has to be, it saved the court and put reponsibility back where it had to be;

And the libs lost 3 ways today.

1. They lost on the Commerce Clause expansion
2. The Medicaide expansion is dead in 26 states--effectively killing the bill.
3. The individual mandate is a tax and it can be repealed--it is not a f****** human right to have health ins now.

You don't understand the ruling and you don't understand the financing of Obamacare.
1. No the commerce clause expansion is not dead, just waiting for 1 more liberal minded justice.
2. The 26 states have not yet opted out. Once they figure out how the funding (not the penalty "tax") works they will have second thoughts.
3. Yes the mandate and "tax" can be repealed. Obama can of course veto any such attempt - provided he is re-elected.

[V guy]

But that loose verbiage as to why the commerce Clause does not allow the individual mandate, sure takes up a lot of space in that decision. The Lib Justices went along with it, reluctantly, as a tax, to save the ACA bill--they sold their souls to Roberts who shit on them and the commerce clause, and did not even use toilet paper.

The fact that the libs voted that the 26+ states do not have to participate in the Obamacare expansion--read FLORIDA, NEW JERSEY, is just wild. It smokes the expansion for Obama--how can NYS be in and NJ out? People will to to NYS and Obama will not like that; that is if he is in office in 2014.

Roberts also made the Court seem NOT to be in the pockets of conservatives.

I would like Larry Tribe and Dershowitz to comment on Roberts Strategy and the commerce clause being interpreted, as impotent to make any of us eat broccoli, or to ban tobacco or anything else.

[alant]

Originally Posted by V guy

But that loose verbiage as to why the commerce Clause does not allow the individual mandate, sure takes up a lot of space in that decision. The Lib Justices went along with it, reluctantly, as a tax, to save the ACA bill--they sold their souls to Roberts who shit on them and the commerce clause, and did not even use toilet paper.

The fact that the libs voted that the 26+ states do not have to participate in the Obamacare expansion--read FLORIDA, NEW JERSEY, is just wild. It smokes the expansion for Obama--how can NYS be in and NJ out? People will to to NYS and Obama will not like that; that is if he is in office in 2014.

Roberts also made the Court seem NOT to be in the pockets of conservatives.

I would like Larry Tribe and Dershowitz to comment on Roberts Strategy and the commerce clause being interpreted, as impotent to make any of us eat broccoli, or to ban tobacco or anything else.

The liberals DID NOT agree that the commerce clause was invalid in this case - READ THE DECISION and DISSENTING OPINIONS.

When TX, AL, AK, MT, UT and GA figure out whether or not they participate in Obamacare they will be paying for Obamacare in MA, VT, MD, CA and IL what are they going to do? They are going to opt in and take the fookin' money.

[juanni]

Big govt supported by both parties of Big Govt just got way bigger.

There is no goal now that can't be extracted/coerced from the citizenry through taxes.


The only way this trend is going to end is if people......

Stop paying taxes, become self employed and pay a bare minimum legally, work the minimum hours you need for money and spend the rest of your time saving money by doing things yourself.

Start invoking jury nullification on everything. Drug, tax and other "crimes".
If there isn't a direct victim, not guilty.

That is what ended prohibition.
And the weak spot in big govt is big spending, if they can't keep the revenue coming in it will collapse. We are not that far from it anyhow.


Of course it takes balls, principle and a spine to do all that, most will simply bitch, comply, go back to watching the TV ,,,,,and of course blame the demos.

We have become a nation of spineless cowards bribed and inebriated by sports, NASCAR, 99 cent cheeseburgers, a shiny car in the driveway that depreciates as fast as it is paid off, 24 hour porn and celebrity gawking.







.............juanni