Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox: Reid will cancel Senate fall recess to ram-through ObamaCare
Fox News Channel | 10/3/09

Posted on 10/03/2009 8:12:16 AM PDT by pabianice

Senate Finance Committee expected to pass bill within days. May involve requiring the states to fund Obamacare so Dems can say it doesn't add to the deficit.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: missinglink
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

1 posted on 10/03/2009 8:12:16 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice

If they force the states to pay for it - can the states refuse to do it?


2 posted on 10/03/2009 8:14:09 AM PDT by antonico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Make our day, Harry!


3 posted on 10/03/2009 8:14:53 AM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
May involve requiring the states to fund Obamacare so Dems can say it doesn't add to the deficit.

Again, Unconstitutional. When are the states going to wake up and stop ceding their sovereignty to despots in DC? More accurately, I should ask, will they?

4 posted on 10/03/2009 8:15:50 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
May involve requiring the states to fund Obamacare so Dems can say it doesn't add to the deficit.

Oh, that'll work great! I hear some states, like California, have a huge budget surplus just waiting for such an opportunity.

/s

5 posted on 10/03/2009 8:16:10 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (For good judgment ask...What would Obama do? Then do the opposite!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antonico
If they force the states to pay for it - can the states refuse to do it?

Hard to say. I would think they could, but the Feds have other funding levers. What bothers me is that State deficits are increasingly funded by the Federal government through such devices as re-allocation of stimulus funds.

6 posted on 10/03/2009 8:17:14 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (Is /sarc really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Force the states to fund it?

What now,are they going to threaten federal highway funding again?

Passing healthcare on the backs of the states will cause 50 , 10th amendment lawsuits.

7 posted on 10/03/2009 8:17:38 AM PDT by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing.....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

Cali will be the biggest loser since most of the estimated 120M new illegals will be going there. With the Cali farmers getting 90% of their water cut off, it will be anarchy soon.


8 posted on 10/03/2009 8:18:03 AM PDT by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: antonico
If they force the states to pay for it - can the states refuse to do i

Yes. But will they? We should list the federal mandates requiring funding by the states that the states have refused to enforce:

1)
2)
3)
That pretty much covers them.

9 posted on 10/03/2009 8:18:41 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: antonico
It's just a threat by Reid. It wouldn't pass Constitutional muster.
10 posted on 10/03/2009 8:19:12 AM PDT by tobyhill (The Communist has arrived)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

this should wake them up


11 posted on 10/03/2009 8:20:22 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: antonico
If they force the states to pay for it - can the states refuse to do it?

Let's look at history:

DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION.

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

[ snip ]

President Lincoln said no.

Seriously, this would be a great 10th Amendment case. There is no power in the Constitution for either the federales doing Obamacare themselves for for forcing in on the states.

12 posted on 10/03/2009 8:22:28 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Rio: Gold / Madrid: Silver / Tokyo: Bronze / Obama: Lead weight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: antonico
States got Medicaid shoved down their throats.

The plan seems tyo be nothing more than creating a "kitty" like SS, Medicare...something tht can't be sustained without upping the "tax".

13 posted on 10/03/2009 8:27:59 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

You really have to ask “What the hell is the hurry here?” What are they going to gain by ramming this thru? What do they loose if it doesn’t go thru? It won’t go into effect until 2013.....after the election in 2012.

If it did go into effect prior to the election, it will destroy Obama’s election bid because people will see exactly what it does to them.


14 posted on 10/03/2009 8:30:33 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

I think in this climate. there are a few governors and legislatures that would be willing to stand on their sovereign rights. Texas comes to mind. If ten or fifteen states refuse on X Amendment grounds this could get interesting. I could see the Dems linking all fed dollars to states to compliance with Obamacare, so it could be very difficult for any state to maintain its non compliance.


15 posted on 10/03/2009 8:36:59 AM PDT by xkaydet65 (atement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Hello 20% unemployment, if the states have to raise taxes.

And what about states that have no income tax, like my Texas? Good luck trying to pass an income tax here. This may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in the secession issue.


16 posted on 10/03/2009 9:01:40 AM PDT by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65
I could see the Dems linking all fed dollars to states to compliance with Obamacare, so it could be very difficult for any state to maintain its non compliance.

I agree. Which is a large part why the feds have kicked so much money back to the states for decades. To addict them.

What people fail to realize is that our federal taxes should be withheld from going to DC. The states should refuse the mandate, then when the feds withhold other money, the states should direct equivalent dollars from its resident's federal taxes into its own coffers.

I'm not sure how it could be managed, but somehow a state could short DC the same monies that DC is shorting them.

Think of the irony here. DC CONFISCATES my earnings, then refuses to send them back to my state unless my state (and me) willingly submit to blackmail and rape.

17 posted on 10/03/2009 9:07:54 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Our state is broke and I don’t see where with unemplyment over 12% nyone could possibly afford to pay more taxes.


18 posted on 10/03/2009 9:08:20 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

A thread a few days ago said that several states are already debating bills that reject a national health care system and assert the state’s right to do so.


19 posted on 10/03/2009 9:17:24 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (We're right! We're free! And we'll fight! And you'll seeeeeeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

The only monies that states control vis a vis the IRS are the salaries of state workers. A state with many employees could refuse to forward the withholding to the IRS. If the state had cooperation from local govts that ampunt could be increased, but withholding from private employers is beyond the reach of state govt.


20 posted on 10/03/2009 9:24:05 AM PDT by xkaydet65 (atement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson