Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[baldgriff]

OK, say that someone makes $50,000 bucks a year, how much goes back into their pocket? Let's say 5% for the sake of argument...what will they do with that $2,500 bucks? Is it reasonable to think that they'll actually save and perhaps invest the money? Or, looking at some of the past tax rebates right here in Minnesota, they spend it on a new phone, new entertainment system, car etc. Sometimes, IMO, it's a better idea to have someone else LIKE the Government invest the money in things which might benefit everyone. Now the key is to get the right people in Government who'll actually do that...

Not every person bought phones, or entertainment systems, or cars...... some did invest, some used it to make an extra house payment, some used it to just get caught up. At least everyone had the option to do something with the money that was overcollected by the state. Some of those individuals probably saw very little in the way of ROI, but there was an influx of money going to business where the people bought phones, entertainment systems, cars, went out to eat, purchased groceries, donated to non-profits, etc.... Those businesses I am sure were happy to see more money coming in the door.

And so what if the ROI was bad, or someone made a poor decision with their own money. Part of life is reaping the consequences of good and bad decisions.

It sounds as if you would have preferred that the State keep those funds - and you would trust that they would find a decent way to spend the money. Isnt one of our gripes about government spending that it is wasteful and inefficient (see the DOD budget). I am much less trusting of the government when it comes to spending or "the right people" not using their access to their own advantage (ie, Met Council and other state officials using access to get freebies or large discount - thing Vikings stadium in the recent past).

Government will spend its money on itself, just as people do. Its how government perpetuates the need for more and more.

[baldgriff]

Sure, there are plenty of people out there who are altruistic, they just have to be convinced that one place they can actually make a change is in government. And it starts at the local level...

or you let Michael Bloomberg donate hie $15 million to the cause he feels is important like Global Warming...

[baldgriff]

Sure, there are plenty of people out there who are altruistic, they just have to be convinced that one place they can actually make a change is in government. And it starts at the local level...

altruistic politician........... two words never meant to be put together.

[Hornsby]

Not every person bought phones, or entertainment systems, or cars...... some did invest, some used it to make an extra house payment, some used it to just get caught up. At least everyone had the option to do something with the money that was overcollected by the state. Some of those individuals probably saw very little in the way of ROI, but there was an influx of money going to business where the people bought phones, entertainment systems, cars, went out to eat, purchased groceries, donated to non-profits, etc.... Those businesses I am sure were happy to see more money coming in the door.

And so what if the ROI was bad, or someone made a poor decision with their own money. Part of life is reaping the consequences of good and bad decisions.

It sounds as if you would have preferred that the State keep those funds - and you would trust that they would find a decent way to spend the money. Isnt one of our gripes about government spending that it is wasteful and inefficient (see the DOD budget). I am much less trusting of the government when it comes to spending or "the right people" not using their access to their own advantage (ie, Met Council and other state officials using access to get freebies or large discount - thing Vikings stadium in the recent past).

Government will spend its money on itself, just as people do. Its how government perpetuates the need for more and more.

This is where we have to agree to disagree...I would have prefered to see the Government keep the money and invest it into something like infrastructure, but the Pols were afraid to do so. This is where I say we need to have people in there with not only a streak of altruism, but also some backbone. I've see it in my lifetime, The Kennedys, Wellstone, and others who thought of the greater good rather than lining their own pockets.

We need to get campaign finance reform back and working, cut the PAC's out of politics, and stop rewarding individuals for questionable behavior.

[baldgriff]

We need to get campaign finance reform back and working, cut the PAC's out of politics, and stop rewarding individuals for questionable behavior.

Now we have found something that we both agree on - something I believe that I have stated fairly frequently over the past number of months. By the way, isnt getting money out of politics another way to make government smaller??

I am always willing to agree to disagree as long as we can get to a place of understanding. I dont think your an idiot - I just think differently than you. We have different starting points, valuations, and other intangibles that play into our opinions.

We may be able to agree on one more thing - Joe Mauer's contract may be the worst one in baseball.

[Hornsby]

Now we have found something that we both agree on - something I believe that I have stated fairly frequently over the past number of months. By the way, isnt getting money out of politics another way to make government smaller??

I am always willing to agree to disagree as long as we can get to a place of understanding. I dont think your an idiot - I just think differently than you. We have different starting points, valuations, and other intangibles that play into our opinions.

We may be able to agree on one more thing - Joe Mauer's contract may be the worst one in baseball.

LOL...it ended up that way because of the concussions. At the time it was given to him, he was a 3 time batting champ coming off an MVP season, in the prime of his career at age of 27. Bad Luck made it a horrible deal...I'm also not sure we need smaller government, we need it to be more agile and efficient though.

[TranaGreg]

Now we have found something that we both agree on - something I believe that I have stated fairly frequently over the past number of months. By the way, isnt getting money out of politics another way to make government smaller??

Just an observation - here in Canada we have dramatically reduced the ability for corporations to fund political parties & campaigns. Its not a perfect formula by any stretch, but it's radically different from your model. But it hasn't reduced the size of government at all ; I'd suggest the two aren't really related.

[Wonderboy]

Just an observation - here in Canada we have dramatically reduced the ability for corporations to fund political parties & campaigns. Its not a perfect formula by any stretch, but it's radically different from your model. But it hasn't reduced the size of government at all ; I'd suggest the two aren't really related.

Conservative Supreme Court screwed us out of that option. But you are dead on, imo.

[Teenwolf]

Conservative Supreme Court screwed us out of that option. But you are dead on, imo.

Apparently Merrick Garland also supported Citizens United. Am I mistaken?

[Wonderboy]

Apparently Merrick Garland also supported Citizens United. Am I mistaken?

Not sure your point other than I should have said conservative/moderate SC screwed or would have screwed us. Anyway, it's not all that clear on Garland:

According to Scott Greytak, who is counsel for the campaign finance reform advocacy group Free Speech for People, Garland's record on campaign finance is somewhat mixed.

The judge sided unanimously with the nine-judge DC federal appeals court in the lesser-known, but hugely impactful extension of the 2010 Citizens United case, SpeechNOW.org v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), which led to the creation of super PACs as we know them today. In the case, the court ruled that for independent organizations that use funds only for "independent expenditures," campaign contribution limits are unconstitutional. The court simultaneously upheld disclosure requirements for such groups.

"It was a unanimous decision, so perhaps [Garland] felt bound by that jurisprudence, but he was a member of the court that green-lighted the creation of super PACs. So we've raised one flag on that," Greytak told Truthout. "But outside of that ... his record with campaign finance is otherwise very solid." Greytak cited other decisions by Garland, such as upholding a ban last year on contributions from government contractors to federal candidates, upholding a lobbying disclosure statute in 2009 and striking down a myriad of FEC regulations as not stringent.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35182-how-do-potential-supreme-court-nominees-stack-up-on-citizens-united

[onejayhawk]

Conservative Supreme Court screwed us out of that option. But you are dead on, imo.

Considering how much both Liberals and Conservatives consider SCOTUS their opposite, I tend to think they are right down the middle.

J

[baldgriff]

Just an observation - here in Canada we have dramatically reduced the ability for corporations to fund political parties & campaigns. Its not a perfect formula by any stretch, but it's radically different from your model. But it hasn't reduced the size of government at all ; I'd suggest the two aren't really related.

You may be right about that... I really think we do need to get big buyers (no longer calling them donors) out of politics.

[DMT]

You may be right about that... I really think we do need to get big buyers (no longer calling them donors) out of politics.

You do realize who has blocked or overturned most of the efforts at campaign finance reform right?

[baldgriff]

You do realize who has blocked or overturned most of the efforts at campaign finance reform right?

Not my party.......

Edit to add: Neither party have clean hands related to taking money.

[DMT]

Not my party.......

Edit to add: Neither party have clean hands related to taking money.

Ah yes, the false equivalency argument. Good to see you've found new material.