"The Great Motivator"?
By laglen
@laglen (19759)
United States
June 2, 2011 10:53pm CST
President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/obama-solicitor-general-if-you-dont-mandate-earn-less-money#ixzz1OBJto47z
Between this and the "tax the rich" attitude, why in the world would you want to better yourself or your situation.
What kind of a "leader" is this?
2 people like this
5 responses
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
3 Jun 11
This is where he's "leading" us to and where he always meant to lead us to. It's the "trickle-up poverty" school of economics. In order to fully establish a socialist state, you need more people who rely on the government, not fewer. Tax the rich so there are no rich anymore, keep the poor in poverty and drive down the middle class to the poverty level. Then the government has full control over all of us, equally. Well, not equally because when there's only so much to go around, the ruling elite definitely get a larger share. After all, without them we would never achieve this utopia.
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
4 Jun 11
I believe this is also the reason our education system has been dumbed down. It's easier to control people when they don't understand what's happening.
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
3 Jun 11
Now you know his method, to kill initiative and reduce Americans to a lower standard of living unless they agree to the Obamacare. Oh that would mean more dependant on the government so that the government becomes their god. Oh and there will be more sick people because universal healthcare does not cover all medicines or the best medicines to cure diseases.
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
3 Jun 11
I'm hoping Katyal argues for Obamacare in front of the Supreme Court and one of the Justices asks him to "sit down". But for some reason I don't think the White House will let him argue anything. I really expect them to appoint a new, permanent solicitor general and let him/her argue the case. It should be interesting to see what Kennedy decides, since the other Justices' decisions are already pretty well known. I find that sad too...
1 person likes this