What do you think he means by that? What does the "human element" have to do with whether or not the law is constitutional? Nothing. Why do you think he wants the court to remember that there is a human element? It's because he wants them to consider the cost of ruling correctly according to constitutional law. And if they don't (consider that), then they are being inhumane.
There is no way you can twist what he said to imply that he was showing support for the Supreme court to make the correct ruling (according to their own consciences) without regard to the political ramifications of that ruling. He is obviously trying to "influence" the court with his comments and that's not appropriate for any President. He doesn't care what the Constitution says and he thinks his judgment is superior to the justices'.
Because justices are appointed for life, they can rule on the law according to their own consciences. They aren't influenced by politics (beyond their own political leanings) and Presidents usually can only replace one or two during a term, so there is less risk of a court leaning too liberal or too conservative.
You may not like the system, but it is the most apolitical, and works better than any alternative would.
page 2 ...
We already have a 'healthcare' tax. It's called medicare for the elderly/disabled, and medicaid for the poor. I have no problem with that.
You seem to think that as a conservative, I don't want to pay any taxes. That's not true. I think there are a lot of things that the Federal Govt can do for us and healthcare for the truly needy is one of them.
What I object to is the Govt telling the wealthy and the healthy that they have to buy a product from a private company or they are breaking the law. It's beyond the scope of authority granted to the Federal govt by the Constitution.
The US has the best medical care in the world. Anyone who is subjected to socialized medicine and the long waits, rationing of healthcare and requirement for govt approval can tell you how much better our health care is. The wealthy who can afford it (because they don't allow private insurance in countries with socialized medicine) always come to the US when they want or need the best care. And you want to eliminate that.
One of the goals of Obamacare is to run private insurance companies out of business. They know that the individual mandate won't cover the increased costs of covering people with pre-existing conditions, and eventually insurance companies will go broke --and you will get your inferior socialized medicine.
Okay, if they are saving my life, I'll eat what they tell me to, but don't force me to buy a product I don't need!
The problem is not so much that the economy is still bad (and it is), but that he is doing the wrong things to fix it. Reagan cut taxes and (at least initially) reduced federal spending to stimulate the economy. Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and eliminate the middle class tax cut. The FICA tax cut is also set to expire at the end of the year. Conservatives are calling it 'taxageddon.' The press called Reagan's plan 'trickle down' or 'voodoo' economics, but it worked. Even JFK (a democrat) knew that you reduce taxes to stimulate the economy.
When San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) was facing bancrupcy, they saved public transportation by reducing fares. More people started riding, the cost per mile went down and overall revenues went up. Why do you think stores run sales? It's not just to be nice to their customers or to reduce overstock. It's because they make more money.
And Free trade (like free enterprise) is a bad thing?
Yeah, it would be so much better to impose tariffs to artificially restrict trade. We don't want American companies making more money!Quote:
At $248.2 billion for Canada and $163.3 billion for Mexico, they were the top two purchasers of US exports in 2010.
US goods exports to NAFTA in 2010 were $411.5 billion, up 23.4% ($78 billion) from 2009 and 149% from 1994 (the year prior to Uruguay Round) and up 190% from 1993 (the year prior to NAFTA). US exports to NAFTA accounted for 32.2% of overall US exports in 2010.
The top export categories (2-digit HS) in 2010 were machinery ($63.3 billion), vehicles (parts) ($56.7 billion), electrical machinery ($56.2 billion), mineral fuel and oil ($26.7 billion), and plastic ($22.6 billion).
US exports of agricultural products to NAFTA countries totaled $31.4 billion in 2010. Leading categories included red meats, fresh/chilled/frozen ($2.7 billion); coarse grains ($2.2 million); fresh fruit ($1.9 billion); snack foods (excluding nuts) ($1.8 billion); and fresh vegetables ($1.7 billion).
US exports of private commercial services, excluding military and government, to NAFTA were $63.8 billion in 2009 (the latest data available), down 7% ($4.6 billion) from 2008, but up 125% since 1994 (source)
And that's putting a positive spin on it.Quote:
In other words, warm weather may have helped create a bit of a rollercoaster effect on the jobs numbers. “Our read is that March is understating the underlying improvement in the labor market, while January and February overstated it,” explains Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for IHS Global Insight. (source)
I will concede that the economy is slowly improving. It has nowhere to go but up! But I still contend that Obama and the democrats are impeding the recovery. There is much they could have done to accelerate it and they haven't.Quote:
Others have a more skeptical take on the weather theory. “The unusually mild weather may have helped boost payrolls this winter, but we do not think this was a major factor weighing on the March report,” says Daniel Silver, an economist at J.P. Morgan Chase, in a research note. He points out that the warm weather continued in March and that the number of people who stayed at home because of adverse weather remained low. (same source)
How would blocking offshore drilling and other increased drilling help the USA become the world leader in oil distribution? That makes no sense.Quote:
[Mitch McConnell said,] “The Democrat-controlled Senate just turned its back on job creation and energy independence in a single vote by rejecting the bipartisan Hoeven-Lugar amendment. They rejected legislation that would have led to construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the thousands of private-sector jobs that come with it. At a moment when tensions are rising in the Middle East, millions of Americans are struggling to find work and millions more are struggling with the rising cost of gas, Democrat opposition to this legislation shows how deeply out of touch they are with the concerns of middle-class Americans. President Obama’s personal pleas to wavering Senators may have tipped the balance against this legislation. When it comes to delays over Keystone, anyone looking for a culprit should now look no further than the Oval Office.” (source: Gas Prices Be Damned… Obama & Senate Democrats Block Keystone Pipeline Again)
The market is highly speculative and it's not real money, anyway. Those gains are only realized if the stock holder sells and, of course, selling stock puts downward pressure on the market. It's an indicator of a potential economic recovery, but not a highly reliable one like reduced unemployment, increased industrial productivity and increased consumer spending are.
Just out of curiosity, how old are you?
I'm afraid I have a very full plate today, so I may not be able to continue with my replies until Wednesday.
Hang in there and I will get to the rest of it.
I don't buy into the whole president, whomever he/she may be, inheriting all the problems supposedly created by the previous administration. These are problems that politicians, including the presidential nominees, help to create.
The human element would be the effect of the law on human beings. And you act as if it President Obama specifically wants them to rule against the Constitution, because he knows it isn't constitutional, which is just ridiculous.
You abandon every single morsel of reasoning to invent a threat that was never made.
As for the argument for life terms, we are just flat out going to disagree. You seem to think that not having to answer to the people means that they will vote according to law, and not for personal reasons, or anything else. It's just way off base.