Nick Stefan's Platform

Aspiring Politician and Public Servant. I'm just a young guy trying to make a difference anyway I can.

If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?

The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

That’s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.

Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another framer, President John Adams.

(Source: jasencomstock, via andrewgraham)

53%….Just more false fodder coming from conservatives.

Just read a CNN article talking about this new anti-Occupy movement called the 53%(percent of Americans paying Federal Income Tax).  This is laughable! They are saying that they are carrying the 46-47% of Americans who do not pay Federal Income Taxes.  Well of that 46%, 23% of the people do not make enough to pay Federal Income Tax. The other 23% are people receiving tax breaks. Most of this 23% are the elderly.  None of these numbers include the Uber Rich who pay no Fed Income tax due to loop holes and tax breaks.  So why are these people complaining about having to carry the poor? If they should be mad at anyone they should be mad at their grandparents for getting old enough not to pay Federal Income Taxes, which would be stupid.

In the article there is a guy holding a sign saying “I’ve lived below the poverty line. My wife and I decided in 1996 that we were sick of poverty. We went back to school. We earned degrees. We got Jobs. No one handed that to us. We earned it. We did it. I didn’t go through all that struggle while raising 3 children so that I could support lazy a** people who want nothing but government handouts.  You want to “occupy” something occupy a job and start contributing. I am the 53%”

FIRST OF ALL! Back in 1996 the average tuition of a 4 year public university was $2,000.  Now the average is over $9,000. If incomes kept up with the rising tuition cost the average income for a typical American would be $77,000.  It is nowhere near that now.  So Mr. 53%, it is much harder, financially, to go to college now for people who are in poverty as it was in your time (1996).

Secondly, back in 1996 the unemployment rate for people with a 4 year college degree varied from 8-10 percent.  Now that number has doubled from any where from 16-18 percent.  So it is not a guarantee that getting a degree will actually result in  you getting job in today’s America. On top of that a high percent of recent 4 year graduates are in jobs not requiring a degree.  So not only does graduating from college not guarantee you get a job but it also does not guarantee you actually get a good job.

So all I have to say is, why don’t these 53% people Occupy some Facts!

GET THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!

Chicago noises

So I have been staying with a friend in the city and the noises here are crazy. The past two days I have woken up to a dog, homeless fight over a trash can, hacksaw, firetruck, and my favorite loud conversations about getting a ride somewhere. Going to apply at the World Relief Chicago office today and maybe a couple more.

Regulation debate, political talking point or an attempt to divide the nation

This whole No Regulation/Regulate everything battle is started to make me angry. It is yet another issue that the politicians that are in power now want to divide us with. On one hand you have the conservatives who do not want any regulations, because they say that all regulations are either an infringement of our American freedom or because regulation kills all businesses. Then on the other side liberals want to regulate everything they can possibly regulate, because they think without regulations the world will explode and that big company’s will turn to the dark side. This issue out of all the issues is the easiest to find a middle ground yet politicians will not go to the middle lest they give up political capital.

Recently the local YMCA has been forced to shut down their pool, which gets more traffic membership wise than any other part of the facility, because of a recent regulation aimed at making pool drains more safe.  This is stemming from a law passed in response to an accident involving a child getting caught in a spa drain and drowning.  As tragic as this accident is, it is now affecting a non for profit family YMCA’s pool.  Not a spa, but a pool.  So now one of the main facets of the YMCA is shut down, which will definitely cost the YMCA money due to no fault of their own.  This is partly due to Illinois’ terrible bureaucratic system and partly due to over regulation.  The state has shut down many other pools as well. This is a case where I believe there is too much regulation. Point Conservatives.

Now on the other hand Conservative members of Congress are going to great lengths to strike down the EPA and environmental regulations. Some of these regulations are key to keeping our air breathable and our water drinkable.  This is a regulation that is keeping everyone safe and is only fiscally effecting mostly huge companies who can afford to accommodate to these regulations. Point Liberals.

So as we can see, there has to be a middle ground and we have to vote in politicians that are willing to meet on this middle ground, instead of the stubborn one minded politicians we have now who are sparking this debate. They have to realize that our country is sick of political fights involving opinions held by only radicals of both parties while ignoring the majority opinion.  I would not even call it compromising anymore I would call it just doing what is best for the country.

Gotta love Charlie Day!

Go Irish!

Go Irish!

soupsoup:

New York Observer: Exclusive “Occupy Wall Street” Unaired Fox Footage (by mavgirl69)