Letter From CEO of Hobby Lobby inregard to Obamacare

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Those hugging their birth control pills, atheists with their Jesus door mats, those who believe in all the fuzzy math, theyre looking out their back window...something costly this way comes

 

[chunkymonster]

This kind of thinking gets no one any where chunky. Its makes logical sense to tax one of the most profitable industries in the the entire private sector to help pay for improvements to the same sector that industry participates in.

So, let me get this straight, according to you it makes logical sense to penalize an industry using the tax code for being profitable. It makes logical sense to you for the government to mandate a company's margins to the point that they have to reduce the number of high paying jobs in order to remain profitable. It makes logical sense to you to then ship those high paying jobs overseas. It makes logical sense to you for tax payers to subsidize a nationalized health care program that then buys the same products but with the profits now going to a foreign company. If the intent and purpose of the ACA was to reform healthcare as part of an overall strategy to make America stronger, then sorry johnsonma, the results of the medical device tax is the opposite of logic, it is counterproductive and irrational.

The healthcare dilemma is hurting the economy SO MUCH more than this tax its ridiculous to even consider it for more than a second when looking at the larger picture.

The medical device tax is part and parcel to the 20+ new or higher taxes levied (not counting the funding needed for the 150+ new federal agencies) on the American people and health care industry. The reason the medical device tax is relevant is because it is one of the many taxes that are included to go into effect on Jan 1, 2013.

You refuse to look at this from any perspective other than a negative one and it leads to these posts with overstated generalities and statistics that have nothing to do with analyzing the effectiveness of the healthcare legislation.

I am not looking at this solely from a negative POV, I am looking at this for face value and trying to determine if I am going to realize a value added service and get a return on my tax dollars. Of all the news, reviews, op-eds, articles, and segments of the law that I have read, I see nothing of value being returned to me. However, what I have realized as a result of Obamacare is a reduction in the number of doctors participating in my HMO, an increased cost for long-term prescriptions, and an increase in my health care premiums.

Freedom and liberty? What makes you less free now than 4 years ago?

Here is a short list of some of the liberties lost under the past four years of Obama; the banning of paid internships with for-profit companies, giving the District of Columbia Congressional representation, the GM bail-out, the ACA, the NDAA, creation of "Free Speech Zones", Cash for Clunkers, reporting the state of Arizona to the UN Human Rights Council, creating law through Executive Order, suing states over immigration laws, and violating the 10th Amendment through the stimulus package.

Given your progressive stances johnsonma, your logic will most likely call the above list is a bunch gibberish and overstated generalities. But in stating such all it proves is your own misunderstanding of the role of the government as enumerated by the Constitution, the rights and responsibilities of the American citizen, and the meaning of liberty. If you really want me to, I can explain how each of the items I listed has reduced our liberty as American citizens, but I would hope that you would research and learn that yourself.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Only the tech industries have so far not been slaughtered in taxes.
Any low hanging fruit will be taken, and whats unfortunate is, people think this as being fair, yet many have stocks, work for and profit from said industries.

If you simply look at emerging countries recently, see their models.
Japan taxed everyone at home, reduced costs overseas to create an unfair competition.
You dont do this when leading.
If you wanted to buy a Sony TV, it was almost double at home than here in the states.
Those offsets allowed for competition, not that they were the best, but so cheap, allowing for greater monies for R&D.

When leading, you need to allow a low enough product cost to consumer to allow for more R&D and profits, so taxing is so counter productive to this, it ruins the structure, and allows for lessor and sometimes shoddy competition, something I dont want in my meds

 

[johnsonma]

So, let me get this straight, according to you it makes logical sense to penalize an industry using the tax code for being profitable. It makes logical sense to you for the government to mandate a company's margins to the point that they have to reduce the number of high paying jobs in order to remain profitable. It makes logical sense to you to then ship those high paying jobs overseas. It makes logical sense to you for tax payers to subsidize a nationalized health care program that then buys the same products but with the profits now going to a foreign company. If the intent and purpose of the ACA was to reform healthcare as part of an overall strategy to make America stronger, then sorry johnsonma, the results of the medical device tax is the opposite of logic, it is counterproductive and irrational.

Your over exaggerating every single detail. Show me some of the jobs that have been shipped overseas? None! Now if the companies fire people to keep their incredibly high profit margins right where they are there is nothing we can do about it.


I am not looking at this solely from a negative POV, I am looking at this for face value and trying to determine if I am going to realize a value added service and get a return on my tax dollars. Of all the news, reviews, op-eds, articles, and segments of the law that I have read, I see nothing of value being returned to me. However, what I have realized as a result of Obamacare is a reduction in the number of doctors participating in my HMO, an increased cost for long-term prescriptions, and an increase in my health care premiums.

Google the success stories chunky, always two sides to the coin and you refuse to look for some reason. Even early on it has done a tremendous amount of good to people who were out of options.

Here is a short list of some of the liberties lost under the past four years of Obama; the banning of paid internships with for-profit companies, giving the District of Columbia Congressional representation, the GM bail-out, the ACA, the NDAA, creation of "Free Speech Zones", Cash for Clunkers, reporting the state of Arizona to the UN Human Rights Council, creating law through Executive Order, suing states over immigration laws, and violating the 10th Amendment through the stimulus package.

Given your progressive stances johnsonma, your logic will most likely call the above list is a bunch gibberish and overstated generalities. But in stating such all it proves is your own misunderstanding of the role of the government as enumerated by the Constitution, the rights and responsibilities of the American citizen, and the meaning of liberty. If you really want me to, I can explain how each of the items I listed has reduced our liberty as American citizens, but I would hope that you would research and learn that yourself.

Please stop with the rhetoric about liberty and freedom so we can have a real discussion. You don't have to end every post with the template (insert text) freedom and liberty (insert text).

Give me examples of how you are less free, don't just spout off percieved causes of the loss of freedom and liberty. Give me actual examples of how you are less free and have less liberty today than you did four years ago.

 

[chunkymonster]

Your over exaggerating every single detail. Show me some of the jobs that have been shipped overseas? None! Now if the companies fire people to keep their incredibly high profit margins right where they are there is nothing we can do about it.

You asked for it...Some Welch Allyn accounting jobs will move to Mexico...Worries grow as health jobs go offshore...Outsourcing May Grow as Health System Evolves. After reading these articles, I hope that you recant your statement that I am exaggerating and no jobs have been shipped overseas. Logic dictates that if a product is not made in the United States, and there is a demand for said product, then the product must be made outside of the U.S.

Also, the only reason these companies are laying people off and outsourcing these jobs is BECAUSE of the medical device tax and Obamacare, so understanding that, there is absolutely something that could have been done, i.e.; not taxing the health care industry to pay for Obamacare!

Give me examples of how you are less free, don't just spout off percieved causes of the loss of freedom and liberty. Give me actual examples of how you are less free and have less liberty today than you did four years ago.

Hahahahaha! I knew this is how you would reply and even anticipated such, your a glutton for punishment! Since you asked for examples, here you go...

Giving the District of Columbia Congressional representation goes against the original intent of the District as the governing seat of the nation. The Constitution clearly reads that only the States shall have Congressional representation and the fact is the District of Columbia is not a State; it is a Federal District. By allowing a Federal District congressional voting, it gives the Federal government a voice into the laws passed by Congress, which minimizes the power of the people to self govern. Loss of liberty.

The GM Bail out reduced our liberty through government intervention into controlling the means of production and effectively determining which products are available to the people. Anytime the government, past and present, intervenes into industry and determines which products, services, and businesses succeed or fail it equals a loss of liberty.

The ACA, aka Obamacare, is the epitome of government intervention into the marketplace. The primary loss of liberty inflicted by the ACA is usurpation of States rights (10th Amendment) and the right of the people to choose their own products and services.

The 2012 NDAA Obama signed last year contains two sections which contradict themselves regarding indefinite detention. An amendment to the NDAA to limit detention only to people captured overseas failed to pass the Senate, and the Senate also defeated measure (introduced by Diane Feinstein no less) to to remove all detention verbiage leaves it open for the government to indefinitely detain ANYONE including American citizens at home and abroad it determines is a "terrorist" despite the protections guaranteed in the 6th Amendment. Heck, even Al Franken, Liberal Democrat from Minnesota, voted against the final version of the NDAA because of the detention clause.

Obama signed into law HR H.R. 347, the ‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,’ which makes it a federal crime to enter or remain knowingly in any restricted area of the White House, the vice president’s official residence, or their respective grounds without lawful authority. The law further states that a "Free Speech Zone" is a "restricted building" is any building where someone who is being protected by the Secret Service will be temporarily visiting. Effectively that means that if the Vice President is on a press junket and eating at a diner and he is approached by someone who expresses opposing views which the Secret Service deems is "disorderly", he could locked up for up to 10 years. God forbid if this person expressing their personal opinion to the Vice President and just happens to be carrying a pocket knife, or worse yet NAIL CLIPPERS! Prior to HR 347 there was no federal law restricting the people from approaching their elected officials. HR 347 is the final nail in the coffin to creating an elite political class who is now effectively no longer approachable by the very people who elected them into office. The is entirely contradictory to the principles of self governance and republicanism. Free Speech Zone are a complete loss of liberty.

Cash for Clunkers was an abject failure and waste of American tax dollars. Again, the loss of liberty here was government intervention into the marketplace determining which products, services, businesses and industries succeed and fail.

Obama reporting the State of Arizona to the United Nations Human Rights Council and suing other States over immigration laws is an egregious violation of the 10th Amendment. Loss of liberty.

Using Executive Orders to create and/or modifying laws outside of Legislative process is a blatant abuse of Executive Branch powers, some specifics include extending DHS into local law enforcement, implementing cybersecurity because Congress did not pass the Cybersecurity Bill, implement portions of the ACA outside of the legislation, using EO's to further the "We Can't Wait" initiative which creates economic policy changes, the DREAM Act, and not enforcing DOMA. Article I Section I of the Constitution states that all legislative powers reside in Congress. The executive branch has the responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. An executive order is not legislation. It is an order issued by the president to enforce laws passed by Congress. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress, who are representative of the people, whom maintain sole power over the right to self govern. This is a fundamental cornerstone of the checks and balances built into the 3 branches of our republican form of government. By Obama using the EO's in the manner he has, we have lost a crucial part of due process which results in loss of liberty.

Lastly, the stimulus package violated the 10th Amendment by forcing States to take the stimulus monies whether the States wanted, needed, or had use for the money. Specifically, the verbiage in the stimulus says, "If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State." Loss of liberty.

So, as requested johnsonma, here are the examples you asked for. These are not perceived losses, they are very tangible usurpations of our Constitutional rights to self governance and are real world roadblocks to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Please understand that if I seem to be singling out Obama for our loss of liberty, it is only in response to your defense and approval of the (mis)direction Obama is taking this country in. The fact is we as American citizens have been living with a steady decline of loss of liberties since the early 1900's. Every President and Congress since Woodrow Wilson has slowly eroded American republicanism, our liberties, and what it means to be a responsible citizen in favor of more government, soft socialism, and social democracy. Eight years of Clinton and and 8 years of George Bush was bad enough, but Obama is moving quickly to mitigate the power of the people to self govern and realize their rights and responsibilities as American citizens and replace it with a far reaching centralized government that grants the people their rights instead of the people placing limits on the powers of government.

 

[riser]

The next 4 years will be a giant power grab by Obama and the Democrats. Mark it. 12/6/12.

 

[johnsonma]

You asked for it...Some Welch Allyn accounting jobs will move to Mexico...Worries grow as health jobs go offshore...Outsourcing May Grow as Health System Evolves. After reading these articles, I hope that you recant your statement that I am exaggerating and no jobs have been shipped overseas. Logic dictates that if a product is not made in the United States, and there is a demand for said product, then the product must be made outside of the U.S.

Also, the only reason these companies are laying people off and outsourcing these jobs is BECAUSE of the medical device tax and Obamacare, so understanding that, there is absolutely something that could have been done, i.e.; not taxing the health care industry to pay for Obamacare!

Explain to me how you can directly correlate these job losses to the medical device tax, its funny how you think just saying something makes its so. Really the arrogance is quite astounding. Maybe they are outsourcing because of the SEVERE shortage of doctors and nurses? There could be many factors but you pin it all on obamacare and the medical device tax because of your limited perspective.


Hahahahaha! I knew this is how you would reply and even anticipated such, your a glutton for punishment! Since you asked for examples, here you go...

Giving the District of Columbia Congressional representation goes against the original intent of the District as the governing seat of the nation. The Constitution clearly reads that only the States shall have Congressional representation and the fact is the District of Columbia is not a State; it is a Federal District. By allowing a Federal District congressional voting, it gives the Federal government a voice into the laws passed by Congress, which minimizes the power of the people to self govern. Loss of liberty.

So if your a secretary living in Washington D.C you cannot have a vote for congressional representation? What you forgot is that many citizens live in the city that are not directly involved in politics. This is a reach for a loss of liberty, not even worth consideration really. Maybe thats why you chose it first.

The GM Bail out reduced our liberty through government intervention into controlling the means of production and effectively determining which products are available to the people. Anytime the government, past and present, intervenes into industry and determines which products, services, and businesses succeed or fail it equals a loss of liberty.

Since GM was bailed out do you have more or less choices when choosing which automobile you drive? What products have been closed off from the public as a result of GM being bailed out? You don't even explain how YOUR liberty is affected here, I'm guessing that you have never had to actually explain how YOUR liberty and freedom has been diminished.

The ACA, aka Obamacare, is the epitome of government intervention into the marketplace. The primary loss of liberty inflicted by the ACA is usurpation of States rights (10th Amendment) and the right of the people to choose their own products and services.

I can still choose which healthcare I get, now people with preexisting conditions can too. That equals an increase in LIBERTY for those people and stays the same for me. Weird how for the third straight example you still have not explained how YOU have less freedom and liberty.

The 2012 NDAA Obama signed last year contains two sections which contradict themselves regarding indefinite detention. An amendment to the NDAA to limit detention only to people captured overseas failed to pass the Senate, and the Senate also defeated measure (introduced by Diane Feinstein no less) to to remove all detention verbiage leaves it open for the government to indefinitely detain ANYONE including American citizens at home and abroad it determines is a "terrorist" despite the protections guaranteed in the 6th Amendment. Heck, even Al Franken, Liberal Democrat from Minnesota, voted against the final version of the NDAA because of the detention clause.

FINALLY, a real example! Although considering the patriot act did pretty much the same thing its not all that shocking. I am against it, leads to racial profiling as well.

Obama signed into law HR H.R. 347, the ‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,’ which makes it a federal crime to enter or remain knowingly in any restricted area of the White House, the vice president’s official residence, or their respective grounds without lawful authority. The law further states that a "Free Speech Zone" is a "restricted building" is any building where someone who is being protected by the Secret Service will be temporarily visiting. Effectively that means that if the Vice President is on a press junket and eating at a diner and he is approached by someone who expresses opposing views which the Secret Service deems is "disorderly", he could locked up for up to 10 years. God forbid if this person expressing their personal opinion to the Vice President and just happens to be carrying a pocket knife, or worse yet NAIL CLIPPERS! Prior to HR 347 there was no federal law restricting the people from approaching their elected officials. HR 347 is the final nail in the coffin to creating an elite political class who is now effectively no longer approachable by the very people who elected them into office. The is entirely contradictory to the principles of self governance and republicanism. Free Speech Zone are a complete loss of liberty.

This one is kind of iffy but if they abused it I could see it resulting in a loss of liberty. Its not like you can't just sit across the street and protest, you just can't go into the building and harass a public official. I disagree with the sentencing though and I would like to see an example of it in court, I am guessing a judge would end up just giving a slap on the wrist.

Cash for Clunkers was an abject failure and waste of American tax dollars. Again, the loss of liberty here was government intervention into the marketplace determining which products, services, businesses and industries succeed and fail.

Well that just made my head hurt. Cash for clunkers violated your liberty? I need some advil.

Obama reporting the State of Arizona to the United Nations Human Rights Council and suing other States over immigration laws is an egregious violation of the 10th Amendment. Loss of liberty.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.



Using Executive Orders to create and/or modifying laws outside of Legislative process is a blatant abuse of Executive Branch powers, some specifics include extending DHS into local law enforcement, implementing cybersecurity because Congress did not pass the Cybersecurity Bill, implement portions of the ACA outside of the legislation, using EO's to further the "We Can't Wait" initiative which creates economic policy changes, the DREAM Act, and not enforcing DOMA. Article I Section I of the Constitution states that all legislative powers reside in Congress. The executive branch has the responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. An executive order is not legislation. It is an order issued by the president to enforce laws passed by Congress. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress, who are representative of the people, whom maintain sole power over the right to self govern. This is a fundamental cornerstone of the checks and balances built into the 3 branches of our republican form of government. By Obama using the EO's in the manner he has, we have lost a crucial part of due process which results in loss of liberty.

As Obama is elected by the people as well it is most certainly not a loss of liberty. More power now resides within the executive branch, its been like that for awhile now, where were you the last couple decades?

Lastly, the stimulus package violated the 10th Amendment by forcing States to take the stimulus monies whether the States wanted, needed, or had use for the money. Specifically, the verbiage in the stimulus says, "If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State." Loss of liberty.

So, as requested johnsonma, here are the examples you asked for. These are not perceived losses, they are very tangible usurpations of our Constitutional rights to self governance and are real world roadblocks to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Please understand that if I seem to be singling out Obama for our loss of liberty, it is only in response to your defense and approval of the (mis)direction Obama is taking this country in. The fact is we as American citizens have been living with a steady decline of loss of liberties since the early 1900's. Every President and Congress since Woodrow Wilson has slowly eroded American republicanism, our liberties, and what it means to be a responsible citizen in favor of more government, soft socialism, and social democracy. Eight years of Clinton and and 8 years of George Bush was bad enough, but Obama is moving quickly to mitigate the power of the people to self govern and realize their rights and responsibilities as American citizens and replace it with a far reaching centralized government that grants the people their rights instead of the people placing limits on the powers of government.

I understand your vigilance in making sure freedoms and liberty are preserved in America and to an extent its a good thing. However, becoming so suspicious of the Government that you begin resenting it is folly. I ask you again, how have YOUR liberties and freedoms been diminished in the last 4 years. What can YOU not do now that YOU could do 4 years ago?

 

[johnsonma]

Henry Kissinger himself said the biggest obstacle to a centralized one world government is the United States of America and its 'freedoms'. That's why we are in the process of 'being taken down a notch or two'.

Johnson and his ilk seem to support this agenda. Applaud it even.

Just sayin'.......

Damn it omg you just discovered the plot by the league of shadows to unify the worlds governments so we could control them all. Oh well, was worth a shot.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

The founders lived under a kings rule, so they devised our constitution.
As others perceive its so called limitations, they step outside of the process in which to truly help it grow.
No, no king for me thanx

 

[johnsonma]

The founders lived under a kings rule, so they devised our constitution.
As others perceive its so called limitations, they step outside of the process in which to truly help it grow.
No, no king for me thanx

We were thinking emperor was a better title, but we have a vote coming up during the next meeting.

 

[riser]

John -

Cash for Clunkers and the Bail Out served multiple roles.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/05/did-chrysler-kill-republican-dealers-or-what/

Put it together:

Auto bail out, forced closing of pretty much Republican leaning dealerships only, then turn around and run Cash For Clunkers after putting dealerships out of business. Pure violation of ones' liberties there.

I'm not even going to go indepth with other things with it and how wasteful it was and how it really hurt poor people more than anything.

 

[musical marv]

Damn it omg you just discovered the plot by the league of shadows to unify the worlds governments so we could control them all. Oh well, was worth a shot.

Kissinger wan anti government all the way when he was in office.Many countries hated this man.

 

[mjmjpfaff]

Damn it omg you just discovered the plot by the league of shadows to unify the worlds governments so we could control them all. Oh well, was worth a shot.

"It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan." 😉
For all of you Batman fans...

 

[johnsonma]

John -

Cash for Clunkers and the Bail Out served multiple roles.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/05/did-chrysler-kill-republican-dealers-or-what/

Put it together:

Auto bail out, forced closing of pretty much Republican leaning dealerships only, then turn around and run Cash For Clunkers after putting dealerships out of business. Pure violation of ones' liberties there.

I'm not even going to go indepth with other things with it and how wasteful it was and how it really hurt poor people more than anything.

This is an argument with no substance riser, come on man. I could just as easily argue that it was because most dealerships are owned by republicans. Hell, I could even go as far as saying that they closed the worse dealerships and most of those were run by republicans because republicans are worse at running a business. My argument has the same logic as that article. Its completely baseless and a waste of time to even consider, both the argument in the article and my argument.

Cash for clunks let people trade in junk cars for more money than they would of normally got which in turn led to them being able to purchase nicer cars. You could say its a waste of money but it revitalized the car industry(to an extent) and gave people more options when looking at vehicles. Riser, how was your liberty violated by this program?

 

[musical marv]

The next 4 years will be a giant power grab by Obama and the Democrats. Mark it. 12/6/12.

Good for the Democrats. Screw the GOP Party!

 

[riser]

This is an argument with no substance riser, come on man. I could just as easily argue that it was because most dealerships are owned by republicans. Hell, I could even go as far as saying that they closed the worse dealerships and most of those were run by republicans because republicans are worse at running a business. My argument has the same logic as that article. Its completely baseless and a waste of time to even consider, both the argument in the article and my argument.

Cash for clunks let people trade in junk cars for more money than they would of normally got which in turn led to them being able to purchase nicer cars. You could say its a waste of money but it revitalized the car industry(to an extent) and gave people more options when looking at vehicles. Riser, how was your liberty violated by this program?

Like a true liberal, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions and thoughts. I provided facts and you speculate on why.. 1 dealership being Democratically owned when hundreds were Republican? C'mon yourself. There is a huge list of Democratically owned dealerships that donated to Obama as well.

I would say my personal liberties were not affected by this because I didn't interact with it. Other people's liberties were taken, be it by their business being closed down by the government, or being forced into selling those vehicles in the programs, or other means. This is where you and I differ. I will stand up for other people, not everything I stand for or argue for/against directly affects me. It affects someone and that's where I stand. Whereas you are only worried about something if it affects you. You are the type of person with the weak mindset that people seek to control to get their ways. Ask the UK how their Gun Ban came into play.. it was done by targeting people with your mindset.

 

[riser]

Good for the Democrats. Screw the GOP Party!

Great. Ever think about the people who weren't in politics and how they are going to be affected? I guess you want higher taxes. Democrats are seeking to raise them and you're all for it. I would expect with that kind of attitude you probably don't have any kids or grandkids? If you do, be sure to thank your grandkids for paying your SS check each month today.

 

[chunkymonster]

This is an argument with no substance riser, come on man. I could just as easily argue that it was because most dealerships are owned by republicans. Hell, I could even go as far as saying that they closed the worse dealerships and most of those were run by republicans because republicans are worse at running a business. My argument has the same logic as that article. Its completely baseless and a waste of time to even consider, both the argument in the article and my argument.

Republicans worse at running business?! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh man, you're bias and ever-changing political narrative to fit your argument is astounding!

Cash for clunks let people trade in junk cars for more money than they would of normally got which in turn led to them being able to purchase nicer cars. You could say its a waste of money but it revitalized the car industry(to an extent) and gave people more options when looking at vehicles. Riser, how was your liberty violated by this program?

As riser said, don't let facts get in the way of trying to prove your point.

Clunkers: Taxpayers paid $24,000 per car

So, let's look at Cash for Clinkers program this way. According to the article there were 690K cars sold under the CfC program. Also, according to the article, CfC cost each tax payer $24,000. According to the IRS there were 140,494,127 total tax payers in 2009. That means that the Federal government could have purchased and given a brand new Toyota Pruis to every tax payer in 2009. If the intent of CfC was to put more fuel efficient cars on the road, reduce pollution, and spur the economy, the federal government would have been better off giving each of the 140 MILLION tax payers their money back to be used towards the purchase of a fuel efficient vehicle.

It's only through liberal grow the government logic where the government determining what cars qualify to the CfC rebate equals giving the people more choice of cars to look at. If there was any "revitalization" to the car industry, it was a short term and false revitalization solely because it was government driven and not as a result of the consumer deciding which products fail or succeed in the market place.

The reason CfC was an abject failure, an exercise in social democracy, and a loss of liberty for the people is because it was government intercession into the consumer marketplace (loss of liberty) that determined what businesses and products would succeed or fail (loss of liberty) and redistributed tax payer dollars (loss of liberty) to benefit a minority of people.

 

[johnsonma]

Republicans worse at running business?! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh man, you're bias and ever-changing political narrative to fit your argument is astounding!

Hey Chunky, reread my post since you COMPLETELY missed the part were I said my parallel argument was baseless just like the one in the article was. Your jump to conclusions based on perceptions that affect your comprehension is astounding.

Clunkers: Taxpayers paid $24,000 per car

So, let's look at Cash for Clinkers program this way. According to the article there were 690K cars sold under the CfC program. Also, according to the article, CfC cost each tax payer $24,000. According to the IRS there were 140,494,127 total tax payers in 2009. That means that the Federal government could have purchased and given a brand new Toyota Pruis to every tax payer in 2009. If the intent of CfC was to put more fuel efficient cars on the road, reduce pollution, and spur the economy, the federal government would have been better off giving each of the 140 MILLION tax payers their money back to be used towards the purchase of a fuel efficient vehicle.

It's only through liberal grow the government logic where the government determining what cars qualify to the CfC rebate equals giving the people more choice of cars to look at. If there was any "revitalization" to the car industry, it was a short term and false revitalization solely because if was government driven and not as a result of the consumer deciding which products fail or succeed in the market place.

The reason CfC was an abject failure, an exercise in social democracy, and a loss of liberty for the people is because it was government intercession into the consumer marketplace (loss of liberty) that determined what businesses and products would succeed or fail (loss of liberty) and redistributed tax payer dollars (loss of liberty) to benefit a minority of people.

Its funny how you cannot come up with a single explanation of how your liberty is affect, all you can say is something something something (loss of liberty). You can't actually explain how the liberty was lost. Its simple really, because it wasn't lost at all. The government stopping child labor was them intervening in the marketplace, so is OSHA. Do you think the government purchasing a specific model for every tax-paying citizen in the country would be worse than letting the said citizens decide on their own? Not to mention that the list is based entirely upon standards and not by any kind of bias whatsoever.

 

[johnsonma]

Like a true liberal, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions and thoughts. I provided facts and you speculate on why.. 1 dealership being Democratically owned when hundreds were Republican? C'mon yourself. There is a huge list of Democratically owned dealerships that donated to Obama as well.

I would say my personal liberties were not affected by this because I didn't interact with it. Other people's liberties were taken, be it by their business being closed down by the government, or being forced into selling those vehicles in the programs, or other means. This is where you and I differ. I will stand up for other people, not everything I stand for or argue for/against directly affects me. It affects someone and that's where I stand. Whereas you are only worried about something if it affects you. You are the type of person with the weak mindset that people seek to control to get their ways. Ask the UK how their Gun Ban came into play.. it was done by targeting people with your mindset.

Like a true liberal? Interesting how I continue to see the "conservative posts" refer to opposing view points through misguided stereotypical remarks. The facts are that a large number of republican dealerships were closed and that a number of them donated to the republican party. Thats were the facts end and the assumptions begin. I for one believe that if this was a true narrative they would of been smart enough to cover their tracks by closing more democratic dealerships.

Not going to lower myself to your personal attacks but I will say that no liberties were affected here. If their business closed down it was because it was being run poorly. Its not like they closed down successful dealerships. Also, people were not forced to participate in this program, it was merely a choice available to the consumer.

 

[wanamingo]

Wait... Im confused.

Didnt it put almost 20 billion worth of sales on the record books for car companies, following a very bad year for them? Im also not following risers point about GOP owned car dealers being closed, something smells fishy there.... Because if you want to be pres you really need to remove the whole conservative car dealer wing.....lol

Wasnt the whole point just to get people to spend again, and preferably in the auto industry? So mission accomplished... and net on top.

 

[chunkymonster]

Explain to me how you can directly correlate these job losses to the medical device tax, its funny how you think just saying something makes its so. Really the arrogance is quite astounding. Maybe they are outsourcing because of the SEVERE shortage of doctors and nurses? There could be many factors but you pin it all on obamacare and the medical device tax because of your limited perspective.

How about YOU ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLES! All the articles I linked all PLAINLY state the reason for the companies outsourcing is to ensure compliance and to lower costs as a result of either the Medical Device tax or the effect of the ACA overall. If anything islimited it is your ability and willingness to see the whole picture of what Obama and the ACA is doing to the health care industry and to the consumer.

The moves are meant to prepare Welch Allyn to address the new “onerous” U.S. Medical Device Tax scheduled to take effect next year under the Affordable Care Act, the company said.

The spokeswoman, Kristin Binns, said WellPoint's shifting of clinical jobs overseas was a small part of the outsourcing and being done through Radiant because it has the technical expertise and can ensure compliance with laws.

1,000 WellPoint employees have either lost a job or hours to outsourcing
...country experiences major shifts in health care delivery (aka; Obamacare)

So if your a secretary living in Washington D.C you cannot have a vote for congressional representation? What you forgot is that many citizens live in the city that are not directly involved in politics. This is a reach for a loss of liberty, not even worth consideration really. Maybe thats why you chose it first.

It was not chosen first for any specific reason. Those government workers accepted the fact that prior to the passing of the law they had no Congressional representation. Those workers also made the personal choice to live within the District as opposed to living outside the District like many other federal employees choose to do. More importantly here though is your response plainly shows your ignorance for the intent and purpose for the establishment of the District of Columbia as the seat of our republic and the reason it never, up until Obama, had Congressional representation. Read your history and put the District and our republican form of government into proper context to learn why giving the District congressional representation is a loss of liberty. Regardless, of what you think, it is a loss of liberty.

Since GM was bailed out do you have more or less choices when choosing which automobile you drive? What products have been closed off from the public as a result of GM being bailed out? You don't even explain how YOUR liberty is affected here, I'm guessing that you have never had to actually explain how YOUR liberty and freedom has been diminished.

The reason you can not understand why this is a loss of liberty is because you do not understand the proper role of the government and the principles of republicanism, individual choice, the failure of socialism, and the creeping social democracy into american industry. You fundamentally fail to understand that anytime government shapes, maneuvers, or manipulates which businesses, products, or services succeed or fail it results in a loss of liberty to the individual.

I can still choose which healthcare I get, now people with preexisting conditions can too. That equals an increase in LIBERTY for those people and stays the same for me. Weird how for the third straight example you still have not explained how YOU have less freedom and liberty.

Wow! It is only liberal logic that believes government mandating that a person must choose something is an increase in liberty. It is only liberal logic that drives the narrative that what is actually a societal benefit to be a right.

FINALLY, a real example! Although considering the patriot act did pretty much the same thing its not all that shocking. I am against it, leads to racial profiling as well.

Well, at least you are not totally ignorant of government's role, but then again, I figure the only reason you agreed with the NDAA argument is because Diane Feinstein and Al Franken were against it.

This one is kind of iffy but if they abused it I could see it resulting in a loss of liberty. Its not like you can't just sit across the street and protest, you just can't go into the building and harass a public official. I disagree with the sentencing though and I would like to see an example of it in court, I am guessing a judge would end up just giving a slap on the wrist.

Prior to this law, there were no federal laws preventing the people, the electorate, from approaching, visiting, or taking aprt of any event held by an elected official. The very fact that the law was passed restricts the right of the people to interact with their elected officials and is even in direct contradiction with our rights and responsibilities as citizens of these United States. This law also flies int he face of over 230 years of political tradition and the principles of republicanism.

Well that just made my head hurt. Cash for clunkers violated your liberty? I need some advil.

See my response about the GM bailout.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

You missed the point on this one. The issue is NOT how people are naturalized or become citizens. Obama reporting the State of Arizona to the United Nations Human Rights Council and suing other States over immigration laws is a loss of liberty because if violates the 10th Amendment. The State of Arizona is not determining how people become citizens, it is attempting to enforce immigration law. The Obama Administration did not like the Arizona law even though is was proven to be constitutional and within the rights and powers of the State to enforce. Hence, it is a loss of liberty. And, reporting Arizona to the UN Human Rights Council is just an abomination of American sovereignty.

As Obama is elected by the people as well it is most certainly not a loss of liberty. More power now resides within the executive branch, its been like that for awhile now, where were you the last couple decades?

Obama being elected has nothing to do with his abuses of Executive Orders. By implying that because Obama was elected that the people somehow blindly approve of any and all Obama's uses of EO's is a false argument. It is his abuses of Executive Orders that has resulted in our loss if liberty. Obama was elected to carry out the office of President, carry out his Oath of Office, and to obey and protect the laws of this country. By Obama abusing Executive Order, he is violating his Oath and usurping power from the people. All presidents who either created or modified laws using Executive Order have usurped and circumvented power from Congress and from the people. That is why abuses of EO's are a loss of liberty.

I understand your vigilance in making sure freedoms and liberty are preserved in America and to an extent its a good thing. However, becoming so suspicious of the Government that you begin resenting it is folly. I ask you again, how have YOUR liberties and freedoms been diminished in the last 4 years. What can YOU not do now that YOU could do 4 years ago?

Specifically my liberties have been lost because of all the examples given above. As an American citizen, anything the government does to minimize my rights and responsibilities as a citizen is a loss of liberty. It can not be equivocated, it can not be argued against because that is EXACTLY, the very definition of, what a loss of liberty is.

It is our responsibility as American citizens to become suspicious and question EVERYTHING the government does. The idea that loss of liberty needs to be measured by something tangible like "what can you NOT do today" is a symptom of the mentality that has slowly eroded our liberties. The fact that you even ask that question only solidifies that you do not understand what it means to live within our constitutional republic, you do not understand the difference between a natural right, constitutional right, and a societal benefit, that you do not understand your rights and responsibilities as a citizen of these United States, and that you do not truly understand the proper role of the federal government is to provide the framework to enable the citizen to live out their rights and responsibilities.

I don't blame you personally though, it's the progressive narrative that has come to control the educational system over the past 100 years, it is part of your indoctrination to accept the loss of liberty and accept more government control in your life and replace citizenship and personal responsibility with a false sense of moral superiority. Me, I'm from a previous generation when they still taught Civics in elementary school and the Constitution was considered the supreme law of the land.

To help you better understand, here's a quick Civics lesson...

Liberty, lib·er·ty [lib-er-tee] noun - freedom from arbitrary government control; freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to individual choice.

Rights and Responsibilities of American Citizens: Rights - Freedom to self expression, freedom to worship, right to a prompt and fair trial by jury, right to vote, right to apply for federal employment requiring citizenship, right to run for elected office, freedom to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness". Responsibilities - Support and defend the Constitution, stay informed of issues affecting your community, participate in the democratic process, respect and obey federal, state, and local laws, participate in your local community, pay income taxes honestly and on time, serve on a jury when called, serve in the military should the need arise.

 

[riser]

Federal courts rule on racism when they see disparate numbers between races. If you take away titles (race/dealership) you would see the same picture. One would be considered racist, while the you argue the other is not?

If we go with your argument, then we would have to conclude that the vast majority of small businesses are Republican-owned. The Obama adminstration wants to raise taxes on small businesses. This is a form of tax repression against Republicans. This is my argument if you insist of keeping with your speculation that most dealerships are Republican owned.

 

[wanamingo]

I don't blame you personally though, it's the progressive narrative that has come to control the educational system over the past 100 years, it is part of your indoctrination to accept the loss of liberty and accept more government control in your life and replace citizenship and personal responsibility with a false sense of moral superiority. Me, I'm from a previous generation when they still taught Civics in elementary school and the Constitution was considered the supreme law of the land.

Sh*t john HES A WIZARD! I never thought you were 100+ yeas old.....

You were probably advocating slavery in 1860 because it was a states right to do so.

 

[johnsonma]

Were the car dealerships forced to participate in cash for clunkers?

Oh, that's right. Business has no rights or liberties being an evil corporation and all.

No they were not forced to participate.