As a moderate, your Uncle Dave and others like me may not like (to be kind) some of the things Obama and the left are doing, but with idiotic things like the birther movement, town hall screamers, death panels, religious wackos, Sarah and all the rest, the right is doing everything it can to ensure we want nothing to do with them or their policies. If they really have any anymore.

Something strange has happened in America in the nine months since Barack Obama was elected. It has best been summarised by the comedian Bill Maher: “The Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved to a mental hospital.”

The election of Obama – a black man with an anti-conservative message – as a successor to George W. Bush has scrambled the core American right’s view of their country. In their gut, they saw the US as a white-skinned, right-wing nation forever shaped like Sarah Palin.

When this image was repudiated by a majority of Americans in a massive landslide, it simply didn’t compute. How could this have happened? How could the cry of “Drill, baby, drill” have been beaten by a supposedly big government black guy? So a streak that has always been there in the American right’s world-view – to deny reality, and argue against a demonic phantasm of their own creation – has swollen. Now it is all they can see.

Since Obama’s rise, the US right has been skipping frantically from one fantasy to another, like a person in the throes of a mental breakdown. […] This tendency to simply deny inconvenient facts and invent a fantasy world isn’t new; it’s only becoming more heightened. It ran through the Bush years like a dash of bourbon in water. […] But the ordinary Republican base believe this stuff. They are being tricked into opposing their own interests through false fears and invented demons.

Read the rest of the article for a lot more of a pretty clear description of how crazy all this looks to the rest of the world.

  1. Somebody says:

    Oh, why can’t the fascist socialists just get along with the socialist fascists?

  2. Traaxx says:

    Posted by Uncle Dave “As a moderate, your Uncle Dave and others like me may not like (to be kind) some of the things Obama and the left are doing”, hee, haa,hee……

    Uncle Dave is a raving Communist Fellow Traveler, too brain washed to know that he’s been pulled to Satan/Stalin orbit.. What NAZI Tyrannical trash Uncle Dave is, they are nothing but racist. All Uncle Dave sees is the color of a man’s skin. It’s the Demoncrats that continue to bring up the whore’s argument of race. Who gives a crap what color a communist is, I still don’t want to be trapped in the hell whole they are trying to create.

    The only fantasy is that American’s what to have the Government standing over then saying who can live and who can die. Why didn’t congress restrict themselves to the same plan if it’s so good. Once a government, that’s National Debt paid, health care is established it’ll be a fast road towards only one legally allowed system. We know this is the goal, because if nothing else of Hillary’s own health care crap.

    The Demoncrats are pissed that some Americans are actually becoming active in their politic and taking the same action that the Demoncrats advocate. And since they know that longer it takes force this upon the American people the more they are going learn and turn against their brain washed garbage. What ever happened to “Question Authority”. Well we’re Questioning Authority, which in the case of the slave holding Demoncrats is mostly a white/rich privileged class..

    Whenever someone tries to bum rush a great deal pass the people, I’m reminded of a Used Car Salesman, the slim of humanity only sightly above life insurance salesmen. I hope the disgust and derision I hold all communist, ie. ‘Uncle Dave’ Stalin, has come through…………………………..


  3. freddybobs68k says:

    # 60 Thomas

    Oh it’s not ‘my system’.

    I’m just saying they exist and are ‘socialist’.

    People weren’t shouting hitler, communism, nazi etc – when any prior president was in power and they existed. And if health care reform is a socialist thing to do, then its just an extension of whats we already have.

    Now you could argue that makes things better or worse. Personally I think we need health care reform. And I believe a government option / single-payer system.

    I think it’s pretty clear – if we did have health care reform, that America wouldn’t be a fascist/communist/socialist/nazi state. I’m also pretty sure there wouldn’t be death panels chasing down and killing granny and the baby either.

    Yet, that is the current discussion.

    There’s a place for socialism, capitalism, conservatism, liberalism and so forth. Funnily enough they can even do co-exist. Yes, here in America. Ideally we’d be open minded enough to try and maximize our result by taking the best of each – instead of just demonizing.

  4. freddybobs68k says:

    #64 Traaxx

    Oh dear. It’s yet another rant proving the original article was onto something.

  5. Li says:

    Traaxx, are you for real, or are you just telling a joke I’m not getting?

  6. bobbo, the one eyed man is King among the blind says:

    Well, just woke up to Chris Matthews with the newsflash that Bushie Boy manipulated ((or did he only try to manipulate==I was still half asleep)) the Threat Level during the run up to his election.

    I think we all knew that at the time?

    Barney==where are you??? Not even a simple denial like DAD?

    #51–DAD==Name one. All three if you really have them.

    #56–Thomas==I aint dodging nothing. YOU dodge the clear statements in my post as if I did not give you jit and jot of REALITY. I know you have read Fusions multiple posts on the issue. The REALITY of my tough titties is all around you. I’m not going to argue with a dining room table about it.

    Do I really think you retards have shit for brains?===Hurts to say, but not really.

    Do you retards with shit for brains really think providing healthcare to all will make this country Socialist?===Yes, I think some of you are that stupid. Call me a budding Nazi.

  7. Hugh Ripper says:

    The conservatives calling universal healthcare ‘fascist’ is like calling your mother a ‘fascist’ for making you share your toys. Grow up and share your toys. Universal health care works adequately in every other country and the citizens (mostly)love it.

  8. Mr. Fusion says:

    #30, Dickhead Belligerent,

    I have to go with the others, you are effen nuts. And a racist too.

    Why do you hate America?

  9. deowll says:

    Uncle Dave clearly has the right to express his views but if he thinks he’s middle of the road he’s delusional. He might try matching his views with what independants think rather than what his friends think and see where that actually leaves him standing.Maybe 30% of Americans share his views.

    #69 Let’s get this cleared up; the seniors are going to get it in the neck. Massive amounts of cold hard cash are going to be transfered to paying bills for younger citizens and non citizens. The math doesn’t add up any other way and that’s the only way to get even a fraction the savings Obama has been claiming. That would be in line with positions he and his friends have taken in the past. If the bills for those last three or four years are to high just pay out less money and let them make up the difference.

    The other issue is you think the government loves you and will serve you well at a reasonible cost. Try taking a look and the finical condition of medicare, medicaid, and social security. The numbers all say all three programs can be expected to implod in the next five years even without another huge increase in spending.

    I wouldn’t call the ultra Dems people fascists. As much as I hate fascists most fascists could do math and these people can’t. A little bit of Joe McCarthy maybe. If you can’t convince people vilify somebody.

    They are socialist and bigger government is the answer to all our problems type people. They expect the God they don’t believe in to pay the bills or maybe Harry Potter to show up and wave his magic wand. They are spending like a teenager who stole their mother’s credit cards.

  10. Thomas says:

    No one is arguing against heath care reform in general. Claims to the contrary are a strawman argument.

    We all want reform. The catch is in what people actually mean by “reform”. There are many types of reform of which a government managed health care plan is only one. Not all forms of reform are being branded as socialist. Facilitating competition amongst providers in different states would not be considered socialist. Having the government directly manage people’s health care would.

    The socialist systems you mentioned are good arguments against the massive changes that the left is proposing.

    You appear to be arguing with yourself. You might consider sobering up before you post. There was a time when you actually provided poignant commentary. Did the medications finally get to you?

  11. Mr. Fusion says:

    #56, Thomas,

    You are claiming that the interstate commerce clause (I presume) has given the Federal government the authority to nationalize the health care industry but there is no case law precedent for this.

    That is just a stupid comment. Almost every venture by the Federal Government has resulted in the Supreme Court upholding that under the “Commerce Clause”.

    Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
    Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
    Swift v. United States (1905)
    Stafford v. Wallace (1922)
    National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937)
    Wickard v. Filburn, (1942)
    Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. (1946)
    Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
    Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1965)
    Maryland v. Wirtz (1968)
    Daniel v. Paul (1969)
    Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)
    Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

    Then, if you really want to explore this a little further, try reading this article by Lawrence Tribe

    Then the Supreme Court has ruled many times that Medicare is valid. I can picture no reason the Supreme Court would condone Medicare yet declare any other health care insurance plan unconstitutional.

    Fisher v United States (2000)

    While these cases do not deal with the question of whether or not Medicare is “Constitutional”, they operate upon that assumption.

  12. Mr. Fusion says:

    #72, Thomas,

    Not all forms of reform are being branded as socialist. Facilitating competition amongst providers in different states would not be considered socialist.

    So what would have to be done to “facilitate” competition among providers? Are certain Health Insurance companies not allowed to operate in certain states?

    The problem isn’t the competition, it is the larger corporations swallowing the smaller companies.

    I’ll put this one under the bullshit category as a reform.

    The “opposition” has not come up with any meaningful reform though. I’ve heard some cry about tort reform as if hurting those already injured by malpractice is something to be encouraged. Cut taxes is another buggaboo, but then I’ll wonder how we’ll pay for anything.

  13. John C. Qwerty says:

    I don’t mind a Brit critiquing the USA as long as he doesn’t mind me calling him on a few things about his sad country. If you dish it out, you should be able to take it.

    1. Your food is horrible.

    2. Jonathan Ross. Seriously, is this the best you guys can do? I can’t understand a damn word he says. Give him subtitles! At least I can understand Graham Norton. And he’s funny!

    3. The Brits follow their government like cheerful lemmings toward the precipice. Tally ho old chap!

    4. Police state much? Orwell was right. A nation that’s the cast of Big Brother.

    5. For a country that prides itself on National Health, they sure have awful teeth. It must be the vicious inbreeding.

    6. Soccer…excuse me, “Footie”, sucks. It’s a crap sport that’s almost as boring as Cricket.

    Alright, so much for my rant. What do you Brits do right?

    1. Bulldogs. How can you not love Bulldogs?
    2. Keeley Hazell is hot.
    3. Doctor Who is one of the best shows on TV.

    That is all.

    PS: Prince Charles creeps me out.

  14. Hugh Ripper says:

    #71 Deowll

    Clearly there are serious questions over how the Obama administration is implementing this health care, but most of the objections coming from conservatives are pure whacko scaremongering based on the usual cocktail of prejudice, ignorance and tight assedness (needs to be a word for this). There seems to be no honest intelligent, or even intelligible, debate.

    It also seem strange to me that people are willing to put their health needs in the hands of corporations, who have proved their untrustworthiness and their singularity of purpose (profit), over a publicly elected government.

  15. bobbo, I got nothing for ya says:

    #71–do-ill==Uncle Dave is a moderate. I wouldn’t confuse being so indecisive that your default position is to be an independent. Thats a different continuum. Now, I have seen our good Uncle be “wrong” on a few technical points, but moderate in doing so.

    Maybe only 30% of Americans are moderate. I’ve often hear America is 1/3 left, 1/3 right, and 1/3 undecided. What this all demonstrates mostly is lack of definition on an issue that people just throw numbers at rather than accurately measure.

    In fact, people are a mix. I am a social liberal and an economic conservative. I think both parties are corrupt. Does that make me a moderate in that my polar extremes are averaged out???

    Labels===for idiots only. Like John C who wants to pre-qualify opinions by hanging Country of Origin Labels as part of his evaluation. Done mostly for humor, but still telling.

    Thomas==trumped again. You are very consistent. Very calm and reasonable “sounding” in your approach, but uniformily completely vacant in substance. Kinda unusual actually. I’m sure you’ll post again in a few days on these same issues just as if today never happened.=====Groundhog Thomas. Don’t worry, some day you’ll get the girl, but only if you stop being who you are today, and grow as a person.

  16. Uncle Patso says:

    # 16 Jetfire:
    “…Nowhere does the Constitution say that the Government is to supply health care….”

    Nowhere does the Constitution say that the Government is to build roads either, but I don’t see the Right complaining about that.

    – – – – –

    # 36 Phydeau:
    “He[Obama]’s a cautious middle-of-the-roader in most aspects, but Republicans have gone so far off the rails that he looks like a radical leftist to you.”

    Yes, there are many who call both Eisenhower and Nixon socialists and all those other bad names they keep calling us.

    Such as…

    To sum up, we’re:
    Marxist Liberal Fascists
    Sneering Liberal Morons
    Consumed with arrogance, hubris, a thirst for revenge, and elitist entitlement
    Clueless tree-hugging, economical ignorant, elitists

    That’s not even halfway through the comments, and they complain about adhominem?

    – – – – –

    # 39 Thomas:
    ‘ “Massive” landslide? What election was that? It certainly wasn’t the Presidential election.’

    Final vote: 365 – 173. That’s more than two to one.

    “…Federated system like the US…”

    Nice fantasy, but the U.S. hasn’t been a loose federation in at least 140 years. It’s a country now and has been your whole life and will be after we’re all gone.

  17. Uncle Patso says:

    Here’s more:

    raving Communist Fellow Travelers
    brain washed
    NAZI Tyrannical trash
    slave holding Demoncrats
    mostly a white/rich privileged class

    Unfortunately, there are quite a few that go in the other direction as well. Tsk tsk. Let’s all try to do better, shall we?

  18. Uncle Dave says:

    For what it’s worth, while I called myself a moderate, that’s probably the wrong word. I don’t know what the right word is for someone who agrees with some of the Democrat’s policies and some of the Republican’s. I also wholly reject many of the Democrat’s policies and the same for many of the Republican’s.

    And I loath incompetent fools like Bush & Co. were.

    For business, I’m a devout capitalist who believes there need to be regulations to keep companies from straying into harming people and the planet. Think food testing, pollution controls, etc.

    For personal, I’m ultra liberal which is pretty much the same as libertarian in government keep out. No drug, sex, religious (prayer in schools, etc) and other ‘morality’ laws except to protect against harm to another (drunk driving, rape, etc).

    Fed government generally: Military (limited — no neocon fantasies), foreign affairs (no toppling governments to help business buddies, however), adjudicate between states, major projects that are too big for the states (interstate roads construction in the 50’s, space program, etc.) and mutually agreed upon other activities. That’s it.

    Government at all levels should, as an agent of a modern society, help people who can’t help themselves until they can. Compassion plus getting people back to being productive members of society. Freeloaders (including investment bankers bonuses) — fuck ’em.

    I could go on with a lot more, but my point is since I’m drawing from both sides I figure that puts me somewhere in the middle.

  19. bobbo, life's irritations can teach us says:

    #80–Unc Dave==I could draw the same description of myself, which is why I pay close attention to your disagreements.

    I think we are both budding Nazi’s, which is moderate compared to a fully mature Nazi.

  20. Thomas says:

    > Are certain Health Insurance
    > companies not allowed to
    > operate in certain states?

    Absolutely. An insurance company in CA for example, cannot sell insurance to someone in Georgia for example. There are many legal barriers setup by the States which make this impossible. There are a few pockets of States which have collaborated to allow interstate coverage but on the whole it simply isn’t possible for any insurance company to cover anyone from any State.

    The large insurance companies will set up subsidiaries in States in which they want to sell but then can only sell to constituents of those States. If anything, the current system is geared towards larger companies because they are the only ones big enough to setup multiple subsidiaries.

  21. Thomas says:

    Clearly you did not read your own article. There is no question that the Federal government has authority to REGULATE interstate commerce. Regulate is not at all the same as imposing a direct service. I have no doubt the Federal government will find a way of making this stick probably by withholding funds if the States do not accept their “choice”. The real issue is whether it should.

    Looking through the cases…

    Since Medicare was enacted in 1965, the cases of “Gibbons v Ogden” through “Heart of Atlanta Motel v US” have no direct bearing on whether the Federal government has the authority to impose a health care system on the States.

    RE: Maryland v. Wirtz (1968)

    This has nothing to do with challenging the Federal authority to regulate health care and in fact contains an interesting statement:

    “Thus, appellants’ characterization of the question in this case as whether Congress may, under the guise of the commerce power, tell the States how to perform medical and educational functions is not factually accurate”

    RE: Daniel v. Paul (1969)

    This case has nothing to do with whether the Federal government has the authority to provide direct health care services. It is entirely about civil rights.

    RE: Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)

    This case is about regulation of the State authorities and thus not relavant.

    RE: Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

    This relates to the Federal government’s authority to regulate drug traffic with this telling decision remark”

    “Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress’ commerce power. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents’ challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA’s categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause.”

    And this from Judge Thomas:

    “If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers — as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause — have no meaningful limits.”

    Indeed. Anyway, this case has nothing to do with Medicare.


    Has nothing to do with questioning the Federal authority to enact Medicare. This has to do with whether illegal immigrants under the existing law can sue.

  22. Thomas says:

    RE: Landslide

    So, by your definition, 1992 was a landslide right? Even though more than half the people in the country voted against Clinton. Your sense of “landslide” is entirely warped by CA, NY and TX. If those States apportioned their electoral votes by population, the vote in 2008 would have been much closer. In fact, if just CA had done that in 2000, Bush would have won handily without Florida. As someone said, if you only win by 3%, that is not a landslide. When you win by 18% of the popular vote, THAT is a landslide.


    RE: Ad hominemn

    You do realize that was in reaction to ad hominem, right? Context m’boy, context. Learn to recognize it.

    > Nice fantasy, but the U.S.
    > hasn’t been a loose federation
    > in at least 140 years.

    Jefferson is rolling over in his grave. This is the reason the EU countries should be scared. This is where the EU is going: a single monolithic government imposing its will over local interests. As I said, it is time for a Constitutional Convention. First change, yank the elastic clause.

  23. Mr. Fusion says:

    #83, Thomas,

    I have to agree with Bobbo that your comments are very hollow. Totally without substance.

    Every case I noted has to do with the upholding of the Federal Government use of the Commerce Clause. Most of those cases end up stepping on the toes of local governments. You may not like it, but there they are.

    Oh, and if you were to challenge a Universal Health Insurance Plan in the Supreme Court, you would find those cases quoted by the Solicitor General as evidence that the Federal Government has the authority.

    As For Judge Thomas, his was a minority opinion. It really is of interest only to legal scholars.

    The cases directly referring to Medicare demonstrate that the Supreme Court recognizes that Medicare exists and may make its own rules. That means Medicare and all its frameworks is legitimate and quite Constitutional. I assume that somewhere, someone tried to convince a court that Medicare was unconstitutional but that argument has so little traction that it would never make it to the Supreme Court.

    Your problem is you only read the first paragraph and think the case is irrelevant. That is rarely the case. Most cases, especially appeals, contain far more than mere blunt answers. The best are thought out and explained.

    But don’t let any facts get in your way.

  24. Mr. Fusion says:

    #84, Thomas,

    I realize you are having a hard time dealing with reality right now. Unfortunately, Obama had more people vote for him than any other President in American history. 62,438,115 voted for Obama. That is over seven million more than voted for McCain (55,380,169).

    3%? phuptptpt. Try 52% to 46%. That makes a 6% difference between them. Call it a significant win, a landslide, a sqeaker, or what have you. Obama won big.

    Ya, so don’t let no stinking facts get in your way.

  25. Thomas says:

    Like bobbo, you have a habit of missing the subtleties of arguments and going off on tangents.

    I never denied that the Federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Never. So, showing USSC that support that is a strawman.

    The question is whether the interstate commerce clause gives the Federal government the authority to impose a health care system on the States and you have shown nothing in your examples to support that.

    > The cases directly referring
    > to Medicare demonstrate that
    > the Supreme Court recognizes that
    > Medicare exists and may make its own rules.

    1. You provided only one, maybe two that even reverenced Medicare and in all of those Medicare was not the primary issue at hand.

    2. No one denies that Medicare “exists” so this argument is entirely specious. I also do not deny that income taxes exist but that is far cry from saying they are Constitutional.

    3. Depending on how one interprets “make its own rules”, ALL entities can make their own rules. If Medicare could “make its own rules”, then why doesn’t it change to cover everyone? Clearly, it cannot make any rule it wishes.

    > That means Medicare and all
    > its frameworks is legitimate
    > and quite Constitutional.

    No. That simply means that no one has directly challenged whether the Federal government has the authority to run Medicare. I know the States won’t because it allows them to offload a ton of cost to the Federal government. In addition, it would be a political circus to challenge Medicare at this point. The “foot in the door” strategy by the socialists has been unquestionably effective.

    It is quite possible to make laws that are not Constitutional, like say the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, without it being truly Constitutional. Until someone challenges the law AND the USSC actually takes the case, it is unknown whether it is truly Constitutional.

    Actually, I read the decisions in all the cases. Almost all of the cases you provided have to do with civil rights and thus, fall into the purview of the 14th Amendment which is likely what skewed your search. The 14th Amendment along with the elastic clause and the interstate commerce clause are the typical tools used by the Federal government to impose its will on the States.

    Does no one actually read the Constitution any more? A founding principle of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal government. Imagine having your arch-nemesis, George W, having power over your health care.

  26. Thomas says:

    > Obama had more people
    > vote for him than any
    > other President in American history

    He also had more people vote against him than anything other President in American history.

    Obama won a typical election in terms of margin. Not a landslide. Not a squeaker.

  27. John C. Qwerty says:


    “Labels===for idiots only. Like John C who wants to pre-qualify opinions by hanging Country of Origin Labels as part of his evaluation. Done mostly for humor, but still telling.”

    Yes, it’s telling that your sense of humor is lacking. 🙂 Sarcasm and irony are difficult to read on the page I suppose. If I have to explain the joke then perhaps I didn’t do my job well. Oh well, it happens.

    Labels are useful. They are for purposes of classification and of easily communicating with others as we human beings tend to be cognitive misers. They are also potentially limiting and error-laden. However, consider the usefulness of labels when applied to music, art, science, philosophy, politics, religion etc.

    And yes they may be used for humor too…for one not to use labels to associate and define is idiotic.

  28. Rick Cain says:

    I think republicans have been in the looney bin for quite some time, we just considered them harmless at least until they destroyed our economy.

  29. Mr. Fusion says:

    #87, Thomas,

    I never denied that the Federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Never. So, showing USSC that support that is a strawman.

    In #56 you wrote,

    No, the “tough titties” result is that the Constitution does not give the Federal government the authority to centralize the health care industry (just like it does not have the authority to impose direct taxes)

    First, to dispense with it, The XVI Amendment,

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

    The Federal Government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. The courts have ruled that includes anything from doing nothing to taking over the industry. Provided they do not confiscate anything, they can nationalize all the business sector and put the previous owners out of business. For example, The Volstead Act prohibited the sale of alcohol even in States where it was legal. Banking regulations put loan sharking out of business. Pure Food and Drug laws killed the snake oil industry.

    The Federal Government does have the authority.

    The question is whether the interstate commerce clause gives the Federal government the authority to impose a health care system on the States and you have shown nothing in your examples to support that.

    There is no way I can present a case showing the exact thing you argue against BECAUSE IT HASN’T HAPPENED YET. The courts can only rule on questions of law. There is no law to rule on.

    Every case the Supreme Court ruled on in my examples dealt with the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court upheld the Federal Government’s intrusion into local areas of jurisdiction in all those cases. It won’t matter how much you deny it, the Federal government has the authority to implement a National Health Care Plan.

    Your arguments are the same as the “birthers” denying Obama’s birth certificate is valid. You (and the “birthers”) just won’t accept the facts.

  30. Thomas says:


    RE: Income tax

    You are barking up the wrong tree (again). The 16th Amendment has nothing to do with the discussion as to whether the Federal government has the authority to impose an income tax. To wit, in Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co, “provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation” No, the fundamental problem is that the concept of what exactly is meant by an indirect tax has been warped over decades and essentially forgotten so that Congress can tax people’s income. The fundamental question is whether the Founding Fathers intended for the Federal government to ever have the authority to tax income directly and the answer to that is no.

    > The Federal Government
    > does have the authority.

    I agree that that the Federal government has the *power* to tax income. So much so that the authority is irrelevant.

    RE: Health care and constitutionality.

    Of course you cannot claim it to be Constitutional because no one has challenged it. That is precisely my point. So, stop claiming that Medicare is Constitutional. There are many laws that are probably (or absolutely) not Constitutional but we’ll never know until someone takes the case to the Supreme Court *and* they hear the case (the later being more problematic than the former).

    RE: Commerce Clause

    You are confusing the issue. There are absolutely situations where the commerce clause is needed. The interstate highway system for example. I’m not questioning that so to mention it is a strawman. The question is whether *health care* qualifies as something that the Federal government can take over whole cloth via the commerce clause and that is far more questionable.

    You are big on espousing the benefits of facts but poor on analyzing the entirety of them.


Bad Behavior has blocked 13882 access attempts in the last 7 days.