If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US Supreme Court) NewsFlash Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is constitutional. The bland mask that is Mitt Romney's face twitches with something called "emotion"   (supremecourt.gov) divider line 3382
    More: NewsFlash, obamacare, supreme courts, Mitt Romney, supreme court ruling  
•       •       •

14916 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

3382 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 05:59:30 PM

chiefsfaninkc: ciberido: The_Sponge: Gwendolyn: I never saw the difference between the federal government saying I must have health care and Maryland requiring me to have car insurance. I'm sure it is in some way but we get told we have to do things all the time.


Here's the difference:

You don't have to drive a car.

You pretty much do in America, actually.

Tell that to people that live in NY actually.


I invoke my "pretty much" clause.
 
2012-06-28 06:01:52 PM

gimmegimme: Give credit where credit is due and try not to sully political discussion with trite, simplistic statements that help nothing.


I'm sorry that I'm not 100% on your side. You and your ilk have an attitude of "for us or against us", and there seems to be no middle ground with people like you. Just because I think this will be very interesting to see how it plays out is no reason to call me "trite" and "simplistic"

In fact, I think that you're extremely simplistic, because you can't wait to insult people who don't agree with you. If you'd take your blinders off for a minute and realize that we're all on the same side, you'd probably see that we agree on more than you'd think. But you can't do that, because you have to be right, and someone else has to be wrong. What's wrong with political discourse in this country? Look in the mirror.
 
2012-06-28 06:02:07 PM

born_yesterday: CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.

Feel free to leave! Take your bridge with you!

Seriously, this ruling makes me feel like I'm Lex Steele and I've just cuckolded every FARK independent that posts here while they sat on the couch and cried.

Cry moar, emo tards.


Now THAT is how you do schadenfreude!
+1 and a cookie.
 
2012-06-28 06:02:19 PM

chiett: Tyrone Slothrop: They already use my taxes to fight wars I don't agree with, and to give bailouts to failing companies. How about taxes actually being used for something useful once?

How about just giving me back my money, and I'll decide what to do with it ?



You certainly are welcome. Just move to a libertarian paradise and you won't have to worry about big bad government "stealing" your hard earned money under the guise of a tax.
 
2012-06-28 06:05:52 PM

intelligent comment below: You certainly are welcome. Just move to a libertarian paradise and you won't have to worry about big bad government "stealing" your hard earned money under the guise of a tax.


Also one should note the approach has been tried, and it didn't work out particularly well.
 
2012-06-28 06:06:42 PM

netweavr: Keizer_Ghidorah: netweavr: Keizer_Ghidorah: technocrat: qorkfiend: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

I won't debate that people without children do pay higher taxes, but what argument do you have as to why they should pay higher taxes?

Obama's broken lots of promises that one you mentioned, gitmo, government transperncy, debt, etc. . . most people are going to be alright with that.

Considering Congress wouldn't let him close Gitmo, how is that breaking a promise?

His mouth writing checks his ass can't cash counts as breaking a promise. I'm not arguing its out of his control, I'm arguing he promised to do something and it didn't happen.

In other words, if I promise to stop the sun from rising tomorrow, I'd be a liar when dawn came through your window.

Maybe you should talk to your Republican friends in Congress and tell them to stop being farktards. Then maybe Obama can do some of the things he promised.

See, your sun analogy falls flat because it's physically impossible to stop the Earth from spinning. Perhaps an analogy like "If I promise to save that kitten up in that tree, but when I tried the local bullies pulled me down and beat the shiat out of me, so I failed to save the kitten, and now I'm a liar because of that" would work better.

What's your point? The end result is the same. He made a promise he couldn't keep. The circumstances don't matter, the promise was still broken.


So you're ignoring the why's for the sake of needing something to hate with? Wow, that takes some real mental gymnastics.

He'd have Gitmo closed in a week if the Republicans in Congress would let him. Checks and balances are a wonderful thing, they work to both prevent the bad and stifle the good, especially when people like you need ammunition for their insipid hatemongering.
 
2012-06-28 06:07:22 PM

ModernPrimitive01: I can see why some people are upset. I just got out of graduate school and from the time I was 18 to finishing my masters degree I was uninsured and unable to afford health insurance. Should I have gotten insurance? If I could have figured out how, of course. I guess people in my situation can now stay on their parents health insurance until 26 so that will cover a lot of young people. Some people just can't afford to buy private insurance and that will be a burden on them, but as a society this is a good thing. My mother would have been able to get cancer treatment in time to save her life if the ACA would have been passed a few years earlier. Millions of children can now get insurance who couldn't before. These are good things. If you fall into that category where this is a burden, that sucks and I'm sorry but later in life you'll benefit from this even if you don't see it now.


Seriously?

Most schools have (well, had until the Obamacare act) cheap coverage for students and it can be included in your hefty bill that comes with tuition. Even if you had to get independent individual coverage, if you're young you can get individual policies for anywhere from $60-170 a month for anywhere from high deductible catastrophic coverage to low deductible coverage that would take care of routine doctor visits and prescriptions. Coverage for young healthy people was and still is (for now) cheap from most insurers.
 
2012-06-28 06:08:22 PM

L82DPRT: Keizer_Ghidorah: Must be hard living you life of fear and paranoia.

No better time in the history of the world for the Average Joe than right now and I'm just some slightly above Average Joe.

And I'd be a lot more optimistic with a little less Big Gubmint.


Yet it's libs who can't live without an ever expanding Gubmint and think the freaking sky will fall if the Federal budget is cut.
 
2012-06-28 06:08:57 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: But isn't that restating the proposition that you're deciding that economic freedoms over social freedoms are closer to your favored result than the converse?


Depends on if you consider social freedoms to be a Democratic striving point or not. Given their history before the past year, and their campaigns, I'd say that social freedoms were as low on their list as they were to Republicans. No bones about it both parties have advocated social authoritarianism in this past decade and both support continuing awful socially authoritarian programs like the Patriot Act. And, like I said, in my neck of the woods a Republican is much different than a Southern Republican
 
2012-06-28 06:11:53 PM

born_yesterday: CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.

Feel free to leave! Take your bridge with you!

Seriously, this ruling makes me feel like I'm Lex Steele and I've just cuckolded every FARK independent that posts here while they sat on the couch and cried.

Cry moar, emo tards.


Nice.

I feel like Galactus going from site to site, feed me more Republican tears!
 
2012-06-28 06:11:57 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: netweavr: Keizer_Ghidorah: netweavr: Keizer_Ghidorah: technocrat: qorkfiend: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

I won't debate that people without children do pay higher taxes, but what argument do you have as to why they should pay higher taxes?

Obama's broken lots of promises that one you mentioned, gitmo, government transperncy, debt, etc. . . most people are going to be alright with that.

Considering Congress wouldn't let him close Gitmo, how is that breaking a promise?

His mouth writing checks his ass can't cash counts as breaking a promise. I'm not arguing its out of his control, I'm arguing he promised to do something and it didn't happen.

In other words, if I promise to stop the sun from rising tomorrow, I'd be a liar when dawn came through your window.

Maybe you should talk to your Republican friends in Congress and tell them to stop being farktards. Then maybe Obama can do some of the things he promised.

See, your sun analogy falls flat because it's physically impossible to stop the Earth from spinning. Perhaps an analogy like "If I promise to save that kitten up in that tree, but when I tried the local bullies pulled me down and beat the shiat out of me, so I failed to save the kitten, and now I'm a liar because of that" would work better.

What's your point? The end result is the same. He made a promise he couldn't keep. The circumstances don't matter, the promise was still broken.

So you're ignoring the why's for the sake of needing something to hate with? Wow, that takes some real mental gymnastics.

He'd have Gitmo closed in a week if the Republicans in Congress would let him. Checks and balances are a wonderful thing, they work to both prevent the bad and stifle the good, especially when people like you need ammunition for their insipid hatemongering.


Like I said, it's only people who believe the President is omnipotent who think he's "lying" about the things he promised & hasn't accomplished yet. It's just sad there are still adult humans who believe the President can wave his magic President wand and "close Gitmo" or "end the war in Vietnam" or "stop poverty", and then get disappointed when he doesn't do it.

I mean, are civics classes that totally absent in America today?
 
2012-06-28 06:12:00 PM
Lovely comments from my local paper's (Inland Empire, California) website

"I do not want to pay MORE taxes just so you harlots and gays can get free birth control and aids check. Pay for it yourself like everyone else, de-regulate the healthcare system and watch it thrive. No one would be without healthcare."
and
"Obama and Romney really stole the Health Care Plan from a great President...the bill should be called Nixoncare for the man who created it."
 
2012-06-28 06:12:14 PM
kronicfeld


Buffalo77: First some medical organization says Women over 50 don't need to have mammograms as a standard procedure because the benefit in detecting breast cancer is small. Men you don't need to take that prostrate cancer test because the benefits out weigh the risk. Mister Recovering Heart Attack victum, you don't need to take an annual stress test unless you have pain, a cheaper Eco is all you need.

That differs from how insurance companies can and do already operate how...?


It differs because you can choose to go with different insurance plans now.
Insurance companies typically tie their coverage to these "Medical organizations" recommendations.
So for example in the NIH comes out and says "this procedure is experimental" or "this procedure is unnecessary" then insurance companies tie their decisions to that.
So you can select a different plan

My point is that there are no death panels (that is what I was discussing), you simply start having more procedures determined to be unnecessary or better yet, the government stops reimbursing hospital / doctors at sufficient rates.

Thats how its done.

Doctor was to give your wife a test which NIH says is minimally beneficial and unnecessary but he thinks it may help her. Its going to cost him $100 and 1/2 hour of his time. Medicare reimbursement will only give him $90 for the procedure. He can not legally charge you for the difference so he rely's on the NIH judgement and the fact that he doesn't want to lose money so he foregoes the test.

That test would have detected her breast cancer early enough where she would have survived.

But no we don't have death panels.
 
2012-06-28 06:12:50 PM

L82DPRT: L82DPRT: Keizer_Ghidorah: Must be hard living you life of fear and paranoia.

No better time in the history of the world for the Average Joe than right now and I'm just some slightly above Average Joe.

And I'd be a lot more optimistic with a little less Big Gubmint.

Yet it's libs who can't live without an ever expanding Gubmint and think the freaking sky will fall if the Federal budget is cut.


Like the conservatives want small government. Small government doesn't declare who you can sleep with, who you can love, and who you can marry. Small government doesn't demonize the non-white non-older non-male non-Christians. Small government doesn't tell women what to do with their bodies or try to shame and humiliate them for not following what Christians think. Small government isn't turning America into a Christian theocracy.

I'll take the LIBS LIBS LIBS LIBS over the GOP any day. At least libs actually treat other people as fellow humans and equals.
 
2012-06-28 06:12:54 PM

LockeOak: By that reasoning, not having a child is inaction, and those that do not have children pay a higher tax.


So you agree that Obamacare is an increase on everyone's tax rates.
 
2012-06-28 06:14:53 PM
Here's what I have to say to all the "libertarians" biatching about their taxes being used for social programs: yes, some of your money is being used to help people other than yourself. Get over it you selfish pieces of shiat.
 
2012-06-28 06:16:04 PM

Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: netweavr: Keizer_Ghidorah: netweavr: Keizer_Ghidorah: technocrat: qorkfiend: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

I won't debate that people without children do pay higher taxes, but what argument do you have as to why they should pay higher taxes?

Obama's broken lots of promises that one you mentioned, gitmo, government transperncy, debt, etc. . . most people are going to be alright with that.

Considering Congress wouldn't let him close Gitmo, how is that breaking a promise?

His mouth writing checks his ass can't cash counts as breaking a promise. I'm not arguing its out of his control, I'm arguing he promised to do something and it didn't happen.

In other words, if I promise to stop the sun from rising tomorrow, I'd be a liar when dawn came through your window.

Maybe you should talk to your Republican friends in Congress and tell them to stop being farktards. Then maybe Obama can do some of the things he promised.

See, your sun analogy falls flat because it's physically impossible to stop the Earth from spinning. Perhaps an analogy like "If I promise to save that kitten up in that tree, but when I tried the local bullies pulled me down and beat the shiat out of me, so I failed to save the kitten, and now I'm a liar because of that" would work better.

What's your point? The end result is the same. He made a promise he couldn't keep. The circumstances don't matter, the promise was still broken.

So you're ignoring the why's for the sake of needing something to hate with? Wow, that takes some real mental gymnastics.

He'd have Gitmo closed in a week if the Republicans in Congress would let him. Checks and balances are a wonderful thing, they work to both prevent the bad and stifle the good, especially when people like you need ammunition for their insipid hatemongering.

Like I said, it's only people who believe the President is omnipotent who think he's "lying" about the things he promised & hasn't accomplis ...


It has to be, or they slept through every class. They're convinced that the president has "I can do whatever I want" powers or something. Maybe they're getting the presidency confused with how Scar acted in "The Lion King".

I wonder if they think that for every president, or only for presidents they don't like.
 
2012-06-28 06:16:13 PM

oh_please: gimmegimme: Give credit where credit is due and try not to sully political discussion with trite, simplistic statements that help nothing.

I'm sorry that I'm not 100% on your side. You and your ilk have an attitude of "for us or against us", and there seems to be no middle ground with people like you. Just because I think this will be very interesting to see how it plays out is no reason to call me "trite" and "simplistic"

In fact, I think that you're extremely simplistic, because you can't wait to insult people who don't agree with you. If you'd take your blinders off for a minute and realize that we're all on the same side, you'd probably see that we agree on more than you'd think. But you can't do that, because you have to be right, and someone else has to be wrong. What's wrong with political discourse in this country? Look in the mirror.


I'm sorry, but the past decade has proven conclusively we are NOT on the same side. I refuse to pay any mind to the kinds of folks who have been dragging their feet in the interest of screwing the country and its non-rich citizens. The goal of these obstructionists is political gain, not improving society.

I don't have to be right. I AM right in this case. It makes no sense to say we need to "do something" when we already have. Want to advocate a push toward single payer? Great.
 
2012-06-28 06:16:36 PM
Ben Franklin would tell you to STFU and GTFO if you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes to the common good of the republic.

And then he would do something awesome, like invent bifocals.
 
2012-06-28 06:18:44 PM

Infernalist: Ben Franklin would tell you to STFU and GTFO if you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes to the common good of the republic.

And then he would do something awesome, like invent bifocals bang four french hookers in one night.


FTFY
This is Fark after all.
 
2012-06-28 06:19:04 PM
....Okay:

1. Card-carrying Republican here.
2. I didn't agree with the individual mandate - still don't - but the SCOTUS ruling was reasoned and clear.
3. They've spoken, and now we need to get on with it.

/If I'm supposed to be all kinds of butthurt about this, let me know
 
2012-06-28 06:19:06 PM

gimmegimme: I don't have to be right. I AM right in this case.


Of course you are. Again, who's calling who "simplistic"?
 
2012-06-28 06:20:40 PM

oh_please: gimmegimme: I don't have to be right. I AM right in this case.

Of course you are. Again, who's calling who "simplistic"?


I suppose I should do something about that.
 
2012-06-28 06:20:45 PM
L82DPRT 2012-06-28 06:08:22 PM

L82DPRT: Keizer_Ghidorah: Must be hard living you life of fear and paranoia.

No better time in the history of the world for the Average Joe than right now and I'm just some slightly above Average Joe.

And I'd be a lot more optimistic with a little less Big Gubmint.


Yet it's libs who can't live without an ever expanding Gubmint and think the freaking sky will fall if the Federal budget is cut.


Myyyy.

That's a nice shiny hook there.

And such a deliciously seasoned piece of bait.

What an enticing aroma.

Too bad you left the biohazard label stuck on it, Mister Deficits Don't Matter, We Have A Three Trillion Dollar War To Keep Off the Books.
 
2012-06-28 06:20:55 PM

badLogic: Infernalist: Ben Franklin would tell you to STFU and GTFO if you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes to the common good of the republic.

And then he would do something awesome, like invent bifocals while banging four french hookers in one night.

FTFY
This is Fark after all.


It is Franklin we're talking about...
 
2012-06-28 06:21:34 PM

AtlanticCoast63: ....Okay:

1. Card-carrying Republican here.
2. I didn't agree with the individual mandate - still don't - but the SCOTUS ruling was reasoned and clear.
3. They've spoken, and now we need to get on with it.

/If I'm supposed to be all kinds of butthurt about this, let me know


You don't need to be, you're one of the reasonable and intelligent ones.
 
2012-06-28 06:22:09 PM

sillydragon: It is Franklin we're talking about...


Ben Franklin the boobiesmaster general
 
2012-06-28 06:22:13 PM

AtlanticCoast63: ....Okay:

1. Card-carrying Republican here.
2. I didn't agree with the individual mandate - still don't - but the SCOTUS ruling was reasoned and clear.
3. They've spoken, and now we need to get on with it.

/If I'm supposed to be all kinds of butthurt about this, let me know


Yes, you are dammit! Could you maybe clench a fist in rage or something? Just for the sake of form?
 
2012-06-28 06:22:17 PM

ds_4815: bwilson27:
www.hostingbytes.us

"Essentially".


www.mediabistro.com

Wait, wait, so now you're telling me it's not a food product?!
 
2012-06-28 06:22:25 PM

Lawnchair: Aikidogamer: Income tax requires income. One could have a stash of money and spend it. There would be no income. Technicly it is avoidable. Wheel/car tax? Don't buy a car. Real estate tax? Don't buy a home. After today...chose not to buy insurance? We are going to tax you 2% of your income or a flat fee, whichever is more because you did not buy the product we wanted you to and you exist.

And being forced to buy insurance/pay the PPACA penalty requires income, too. If you don't have income (or have a low enough income), you are exempted from it.

If you don't have income then you are still responsible for the flat fee because medicaid is till means tested by resources. So yes, if you have resources but no income you will still pay the minimum tax.

Which is why this is an income tax, for all intents and purposes. Not a capitation/poll tax.

This is not idle theorizing (even though I was theorizing this 6 months ago). This is what the Chief Justice wrote and majority of the USSC agreed with.

 
2012-06-28 06:22:44 PM
Has anyone suggested yet that they didn't raise taxes, but just created a new one?
 
2012-06-28 06:22:58 PM
Paging Mr. Harrelson.....

Kagan should have recused herself. The racist Sotomayor sucks Donkey cock!
 
2012-06-28 06:23:24 PM

greentea1985: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: John Roberts siding with the left wing of the court... MY GOD! THE MAYANS WERE RIGHT!

Roberts is a conservative but he tends to stick within the letter of the law of the Constitution, unlike Scalia and Thomas who like to legislate from the bench. Despite the pessimism, when I heard 19/20 constitutional scholars thought Obamacare is constitutional, I had a feeling it would survive.


Oh, what do Constitutional Scholars have to do with anything? It's not like this was ever about that. Hell Obama *is* a constitutional scholar and he has credibility on that stuff. I know it's hard to get used to having a Prez who knows stuff about the law and the government after all these years, but there are advantages....

This was never about anything but sour grapes. This approach passed muster back when most of this plan was the plan of the Republicans. Obama was even willing to give them lots of credit, but since by the time it came to vote, the Republicans had pretty much decided to NEVER approve an Obama initiative, well, fark them and rightly so.
 
2012-06-28 06:23:39 PM
 
2012-06-28 06:23:50 PM

The_Sponge: "I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."


What specific plan was he discussing and was his plan implemented? Did that plan raise taxes for families making less than 250,000? Or are you dishonestly attempting to ignore the specific plan he was talking about in that quote and make it seem like he made a general statement that no policy of his every will cause any tax increase on families making less than 250k?
 
2012-06-28 06:24:21 PM
God this has turned to a clusterfark. Fortunately I imagine that unlike internet forums most common folk are going to realize how unsustainable and how damaging this legislation will be to the country's longterm economic health. I imagine when election time comes around this year we're gonna be seeing some heads roll. You could put a rotten turnip (which probably wouldn't be too far from being an accurate representation of Mitt Romney) in the running for president and Obama would probably still lose just to send Washington a message.

And that's really what it's come down to at this point. Both parties are so far removed from reality that they are just doing what they want without regards to reality or consequences. They are behaving like this is still the Industrial Era. It isn't. It's the Digital Era, and the best solution to our healthcare and economic woes is through innovation and not through more Industrial Era government-mandated bureaucratic bloat. I could elaborate more but it would just get lost in the noise and trolling, so that's that. Fortunately I hold greater faith in the intelligence of the general US population than I do in the people posting here, so I think there's definitely some hope in turning this around.

Hopefully.
 
2012-06-28 06:25:04 PM

armoredbulldozer: Paging Mr. Harrelson.....

Kagan should have recused herself. The racist Sotomayor sucks Donkey cock!


Yeeees, let the hate flow....
 
2012-06-28 06:25:58 PM

Thrag: The_Sponge: "I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

What specific plan was he discussing and was his plan implemented? Did that plan raise taxes for families making less than 250,000? Or are you dishonestly attempting to ignore the specific plan he was talking about in that quote and make it seem like he made a general statement that no policy of his every will cause any tax increase on families making less than 250k?


i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-06-28 06:27:02 PM

NewportBarGuy: I likes this one...

Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:04:52 PM by GodAndCountryFirst

Health care IS NOT A RIGHT! Nobody has a "right" to the services of a doctor! I would rather DIE than accept Obamacare! This is a DARK DAY! We must FIGHT this attack against LIBERTY!

Your health IS NOT MY PROBLEM. Can't afford to pay for care? Then STAY HEALTHY! It's not that hard! There are two primary sources of health care: Your OWN ACTIONS and your RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. I mean it. God heals illness when he chooses to. When he chooses not to, then nobody can help you anyway! If you want to supplement your OWN actions by getting the advice of a doctor or using medication, then PAY FOR IT. If you can't, that's sad for you, but you have no right to FORCE ME to pay for you!


And you Christians wonder why people look down on you.

/if you're not crazy, then start reigning in your crazies, because they aren't helping you look good
 
2012-06-28 06:27:04 PM

sillydragon: badLogic: Infernalist: Ben Franklin would tell you to STFU and GTFO if you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes to the common good of the republic.

And then he would do something awesome, like invent bifocals while banging four french hookers in one night.

FTFY
This is Fark after all.

It is Franklin we're talking about...


well played sir!
 
2012-06-28 06:27:13 PM

LordJiro: Congress could already "make" you buy a house, or "make" you have a child, by making you pay more in taxes. How is this different?


Where in the bill does it say that it institutes a tax deduction for people with health insurance? Where in the present tax code does it say that a person without a mortgage or children is being penalized with an extra tax (or fine collected by the IRS)?

If the bill would have given a tax deduction to people with health insurance then the "mandate" wouldn't have even been challenged. It wouldn't have even been called a mandate. Congress (well, the democrats) said that they had the power under the commerce clause to force you to buy insurance. That's what they claimed when they passed the bill. The court is saying that the law doesn't mean what congress wanted it to mean, now it means something different.
 
2012-06-28 06:27:48 PM

AtlanticCoast63: ....Okay:

1. Card-carrying Republican here.
2. I didn't agree with the individual mandate - still don't - but the SCOTUS ruling was reasoned and clear.
3. They've spoken, and now we need to get on with it.

/If I'm supposed to be all kinds of butthurt about this, let me know


You're a good guy. It just seem to me a lot of good guys are there anymore in the Republican Party. Or maybe the assholes are being so loud they are drowning the good ones out.
 
2012-06-28 06:27:50 PM
I'm going to point something out. Being happy you won because it means the other side lost doesn't make you any better than your opposition.

I'm amazed how many people here really are more concerned with winning and losing than the relevant issues involved. OK, not amazed. Disappointed.
 
2012-06-28 06:28:50 PM

JollyMagistrate: This already exists and no one was complaining with the many, many other taxes that work in this fashion. For example: those who do not have children are taxed more. Simply for being alive. Imagine that. Every exemption you can claim on your taxes work in exactly the same way.

This is neither radical nor new. And if you look pre-2008 you will find almost all of your current Republicans in favor of this mandate as being "personally responsible." The only real source of this manufactured outrage is that Republicans didn't get to present it to the national scale first.


Exemptions are a formulaic calculation of reduction in tax burden based on the cost for sustaining yourself or children. This is simply a fee for not doing as the govt wants you to do. I also had a problem with it when the Republicans wanted to do it at a federal level. At the State level, I am more or less fine with it. I would not vote for it, but if NY or CA want it, so be it. Tax or penalty, the implication is spend your money on products your government wants you to or else...
 
2012-06-28 06:29:30 PM

BobBoxBody: God this has turned to a clusterfark. Fortunately I imagine that unlike internet forums most common folk are going to realize how unsustainable and how damaging this legislation will be to the country's longterm economic health. I imagine when election time comes around this year we're gonna be seeing some heads roll. You could put a rotten turnip (which probably wouldn't be too far from being an accurate representation of Mitt Romney) in the running for president and Obama would probably still lose just to send Washington a message.

And that's really what it's come down to at this point. Both parties are so far removed from reality that they are just doing what they want without regards to reality or consequences. They are behaving like this is still the Industrial Era. It isn't. It's the Digital Era, and the best solution to our healthcare and economic woes is through innovation and not through more Industrial Era government-mandated bureaucratic bloat. I could elaborate more but it would just get lost in the noise and trolling, so that's that. Fortunately I hold greater faith in the intelligence of the general US population than I do in the people posting here, so I think there's definitely some hope in turning this around.

Hopefully.


"I'd say what's on my mind, but I won't, nanny-nanny-boo-boo"

If you're so convinced of yourself, then tell us why helping others and watching out for your fellow humans and Americans is such a horrible world-shattering evil thing.
 
2012-06-28 06:30:06 PM

I've seen this twice in my life. Remember David Souter?

i50.tinypic.com

HEY GUISE! WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS THREAD?!
 
2012-06-28 06:30:12 PM

BobBoxBody: .. Both parties are so far removed from reality...


That's a lie and YOU KNOW IT! While far from perfect, the Democrats have frequent conversations with reality. Look at you; even though every real economist says Obamacare will save the Average American money, you just KNOW it's really going to cost us more.

Bugger off.
 
2012-06-28 06:30:23 PM

armoredbulldozer: Paging Mr. Harrelson.....

Kagan should have recused herself. The racist Sotomayor sucks Donkey cock!


Should Clarence Thomas recused himself? You know they guy who's wife took 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS FROM ANTI-ACA GROUPS IN LOBBYING MONEY?
 
2012-06-28 06:31:18 PM

jigger: LockeOak: By that reasoning, not having a child is inaction, and those that do not have children pay a higher tax.

So you agree that Obamacare is an increase on everyone's tax rates.


I find it difficult to imagine someone who comes out worse off under the PPACA than they were before. Everyone should benefit from better price controls as well as expanded patient's rights. I suppose if you're a healthy 26-30 year old male (as am I) that's currently uninsured (I have health insurance) you will end up paying more than before, though you will have health insurance, likely discounted. There are also some measures that increase taxes on unearned income by the very wealthy, but that doesn't concern me. I would much prefer single-payer, but this is a big improvement over the previous system.
 
2012-06-28 06:32:07 PM

BobBoxBody: how unsustainable and how damaging this legislation will be to the country's longterm economic health


Making sure people don't go bankrupt due to medical expenses is bad for long term economic health? Really?
 
Displayed 50 of 3382 comments

First | « | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report