SC Working to Nullify Obamacare

[Guest TNSovereignty]

SC on-track to claim their rightful state sovereignty & nullify Obamacare.  Good for them!  Hope it's a Fort Sumter moment.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/s-carolina-aims-to-nullify-obamacare/

Edited December 11, 2013 by TNSovereignty

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Interesting stuff in that article, thanks.

[greenego]

Hopefully it will get passed and signed by the Gov. 

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

What cracks me up is they will claim this but still use the roads the gov build.. cant have it both ways.. either all or nothing..

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It may crack you up, but the Highway Trust Fund doesn't leave much choice. It was designed to be that way. It's kind of like

extortion the way the federal government sets up programs like that. All the revenue sharing schemes work like extortion. If

all that money taken in by federal taxation was left at home at the state level, you might see a tier or two thousands less

bureacrats without jobs, but the roads in those particular states, who are used as siphons for other states, would be better.

 

The "gov" doesn't build anything, it just takes money from one and spends it the way it wants, somewhere else.

Edited December 12, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Mike.357]

they can nullify all they want.   Won't change anything.

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

Doesn't matter.. anything the state  did to improve living.. roads.. parks etc.. they will still use.. so you cant claim sovereignty and then use public amenities ...I think its BS..

 

Same with people who pick and choose how they interpret the bible ..

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nah, nothing matters.

[Guest TNSovereignty]

Doesn't matter.. anything the state  did to improve living.. roads.. parks etc.. they will still use.. so you cant claim sovereignty and then use public amenities ...I think its BS..

 

Same with people who pick and choose how they interpret the bible ..

To a point I rather agree with you.  A sovereign state should do two things simultaneously:

 

1)  Swear off the unconstitutional federal infringement of state sovereignty.

2)  Swear off the whoring after federal funds.

 

I'd love to see TN do both.  I asked a state senator recently if they had ever discussed developing a 'shadow' state budget, crafted without including any federal kickbacks.  He said, "Good idea, we've never thought to do that."  Hell, why not!?!  We need to know what services could & could not be provided without federal funds.  Another thing would have to be addressed ... how much revenue should state residents be sending via 1040 confiscation.  Tax reform, in my mind, would entail state residents sending their tax receipts to the federal government via the state comptroller, allowing the state to hold back revenue when the feds overreach.  So for the time being we at least need to go after the federal funds that Tennesseans pay out, but ideally no more than that.  That would be a moral high ground you couldn't argue with.  

 

they can nullify all they want.   Won't change anything.

I beg to differ.  We need more anti-federalism, and a state thumbing their nose at the feds will ultimately go to the courts.  And if that doesn't change anything, then maybe a few people will wake up the next day with a better understanding of their serf status.  The more people recognizing their enslavement, the more likelihood that a LOT of things will change.  

Edited December 12, 2013 by TNSovereignty

[Guest 6.8 AR]

1)Doesn't matter.. anything the state  did to improve living.. roads.. parks etc.. they will still use.. so you cant claim sovereignty and then use public amenities ...I think its BS..

 

2)Same with people who pick and choose how they interpret the bible ..

Maybe, one of these days, you will get around to explaining how one of those has to do with the other, since they're the same. :D

[jacob]

Doesn't the money those states "whore" after come from the citizens of those states anyway??...last I checked the fed wasn't independently wealthy...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Only with the exception of something called apportionments. That is the Robin Hood part of the equation. That is how some states get more of yours and my money sometimes more than our state. Some might call it theft.

Edited December 12, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Guest TNSovereignty]

Georgia is onboard:  http://www.thedailysheeple.com/breaking-legislators-introducing-bill-to-nullify-obamacare-in-georgia_122013

 

Thoughtful points from the 10th Amendment Center (TAC):

 

 TAC’s state-plan to nullify Obamacare includes four key parts. The main part, as bills in South Carolina and Georgia are proposing, would ban the state from enforcing or providing material support for the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act. The plan also includes a rejection of the Medicaid expansion, steps to reduce the impact and enforcement of the mandate tax, and press for an ongoing challenge to the taxes themselves.

“Each piece might seem like a small piece of thread,” said Maharrey. “But when you tie all kinds of threads together you have a strong piece of rope.  By refusing to comply in multiple states and various areas, we’re going to pull the rug right out from under Obamacare.”

[Guest TNSovereignty]

Doesn't the money those states "whore" after come from the citizens of those states anyway??...last I checked the fed wasn't independently wealthy...

No sir - not true.  The federal government plays the Robin Hood game, launders the money ... and then, as 6.8 AR points out, apportions some back to the states.  Some states are winners, others are losers.

 

Here's an example from the great state of Mitch McConnell:

Kentucky
> Federal spending per capita net of income taxes: $12,129
> Total federal spending per capita: $13,198
> Federal income taxes per capita: $1,069

 

Easy math ... that's a $12K per person delta.  The federal government isn't independently wealthy ... but they're very good at confiscating wealth. 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I didn't know it was that dramatic. Man, you picked a good example, and right next to us.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I heard someone say if they did away with federal witholding during the year, and you had to write a check on April 15, and the elections

were on April 16, each time, you probably would have a different attitude about taxation, much less apportionments, and would pay closer

attention to who you vote for. I agree.

[npgunner]

I heard someone say if they did away with federal witholding during the year, and you had to write a check on April 15, and the elections

were on April 16, each time, you probably would have a different attitude about taxation, much less apportionments, and would pay closer

attention to who you vote for. I agree.

I've heard this before, thought about it, and wish this is the way it was done.  As is now, most people don't "notice" exactly how much they pay in taxes, especially if at the end of the year they get money back.  If they had to write a check for the amount they pay in a year, they would "feel" it in a much different way.  This is why people hated the tax collectors so much back in the day.  I've also heard that the % tax rates that ultimately resulted in things like the Boston Tea Party where SIGNIFICANTLY less than what people pay now a days.  I think if there was a way for people to really feel the overwhelmingly burdensome tax rate we have now a days, we would stand a fighting chance at some real change in America.

[thundersnow]

Point of order: I feel like taking monies for roads and other infrastructure is vastly different than opposing a federal statute based on legal objections. That is the argument the article is trying to make. If the fed oversteps its bounds, states have a legal right to oppose. It is not, IMO, a black and white (all or nothing) concept for federal funding. And to link them is a grave mistake to the status quo of our current government.

[Guest TNSovereignty]

Point of order: I feel like taking monies for roads and other infrastructure is vastly different than opposing a federal statute based on legal objections. That is the argument the article is trying to make. If the fed oversteps its bounds, states have a legal right to oppose. It is not, IMO, a black and white (all or nothing) concept for federal funding. And to link them is a grave mistake to the status quo of our current government.

So ... your point of order, ultimately, is that it's a grave mistake to confront the status quo of our current government?  Care to rephrase that?

 

Yes, money for roads & infrastructure is certainly different.  The taxation process by which we fund these imperatives, however, is grossly corrupt.  My point of order was that states, if they truly choose to be sovereign, must be prepared to jettison the unconstitutional laws while also absorbing the financial hit if the feds withheld the apportionment.  Ideally, TN taxation should stay in TN ... and poorer states shouldn't be whoring after the revenues from more wealthy states.  

[Guest TNSovereignty]

I didn't know it was that dramatic. Man, you picked a good example, and right next to us.

Yeah, I was kind of surprised at how dramatic the numbers were.  I was looking for TN data but couldn't find it quickly.  I was able to find a list of the top-10 states on the take,  & Kentucky was #6.  Interestingly, the top-10 states were both red & blue.  

[jacob]

[quote name="TNSovereignty" post="1078002" timestamp="1386889756"]No sir - not true. The federal government plays the Robin Hood game, launders the money ... and then, as 6.8 AR points out, apportions some back to the states. Some states are winners, others are losers. Here's an example from the great state of Mitch McConnell: [b]Kentucky[/b] [b]> Federal spending per capita net of income taxes:[/b] $12,129 [b]> Total federal spending per capita:[/b] $13,198 [b]> Federal income taxes per capita: [/b]$1,069 Easy math ... that's a $12K per person delta. The federal government isn't independently wealthy ... but they're very good at [i][u]confiscating[/u][/i] wealth. [/quote] I understand the point you are making....mine was simply that the fed govt gets its money from the "states"...and I also agree that using money from the govt for infrastructure is fundamentally different than state opposition to the health care law...I'm sure the framers would make the same assertion. ..

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No, the federal government gets its money from the revenue generated from taxpayers, taxes and fees from national highway fuel tax,

tariffs(if any), etc, but the states only contribute to federal government from mandated taxes that they are required to share. I may have left

one or two out, but the federal revenue is primarily from the people/entities who pay taxes. All other considerations are negligible.

 

"People" is the operative word for taxation. So that squib fired about government roads is meaningless. That government road was paid

for by the taxpayer and not the federal government. Apportionments for government highways, such as US highways and the Interstate

highway system are both paid for by the taxpayer, regardless of who takes the credit.

 

So, anyone who wishes to give the federal government credit might look into a mirror and take note about his/hers payment of taxes and

see how well those dollars are spent.

 

Now, take the ACA and see how much money is used from your contribution to pay for someone else's, not comparing this to private insurance,

and see how, after the bureacrats take their cut, probably averaging GS10 and up plus administration costs and other layers like new buildings

and shrines in DC for their vanity with a new administration, and what will you have left over to pay the doctors, nurses, hospitals and all the other

things associated with this and I'll bet you have a big black hole. There is no way in Hell this can lower health care costs when all it essentially

does is increase by adding layers of bureacrats and further complicating an already burdened system.

 

all this law did was burden everyone more and lessen the available health care. I would love to see SC take this and run with it.

Edited December 13, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[sigmtnman]

I thought the tax I paid at the pump funded most of road projects.  Well other than the pork barrel type federal projects.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Like everything else, it goes into the general fund, like my railroad retirement, which isn't supposed to.

[sigmtnman]

Like everything else, it goes into the general fund, like my railroad retirement, which isn't supposed to.

 

Was thinking of the state gas tax we pay at the pump.  It does look like .7 cents of it goes into the state general fund though.  That's BS.

 

http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/gastax/

 

 

The last sentence on that page makes no sense.

Edited December 14, 2013 by sigmtnman