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.

(American Thinker)   We just saw the Court sanction unlimited taxation on behavior and give permission to lie about it at the same time   (americanthinker.com) divider line 459
    More: Sad, punishments, Charles Krauthammer, supreme courts, Ways and Means Committee, Turbotax  
•       •       •

2142 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jun 2012 at 9:30 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-29 11:49:44 AM  

Shyran: qorkfiend: WombatControl: This opens the door to future challenges under the taxing power.

How so? The ruling is that the PPACA is constitutional because it's a tax. There's not much wiggle room.

Roberts essentially said that if anyone wants this thing to die, they'll have to pass new legislation. In his opinion, he stated that the penalty did not satisfy the statutory requirements for the Anti-Injunction Act, which, if it had, would have held up any further ruling by the Supreme Court until such time as the tax was assessed and collected by the IRS and someone would have to sue for a refund. However, he decided that the penalty did satisfy the constitutional requirement through Congress' power of taxation, which meant that this was the end all be all regarding the matter of this specific legislation, as opposed to a ruling further down the line if it had been upheld as constitutional AND having satisfied the requirement of the Anti-Injunction Act. Which is why Republican legislators are talking about repealing it now, as opposed to discussing further judicial challenges.


I see it like this: there are no longer any lines of attack on constitutionality without substantial modifications to the law. If Congress is going to make substantial modifications to the law, they'll just repeal it.
 
2012-06-29 11:50:05 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Infernalist: Refresh my memory here, but wasn't this tax the direct cause of the so-called Whiskey Rebellion?

Yeah, and that anti-american socialist "President" Washington personally put them down.


Clearly, he was the Anti-Christ.

I guess the whole 'taxes suck, screw everyone!' instinct is ingrained into our national DNA.

For those conservatives who still cling to the idea of armed rebellion: Washington would see you as an enemy of the United States.
 
2012-06-29 11:50:49 AM  

MyRandomName: Weaver95: Erix:
Fair enough. That's far more pragmatic than most "libertarians" I've run across, but I can agree with all of that.

I understand the objections to Obamacare...but honestly - what's the alternative? I have seen NOTHING from the Republicans on this issue that could be considered a valid alternative to solving (or at least attempting to solve) our health care issues. Doing nothing is worse than Obamacare, at least in my book. you want to repeal Obamacare then you damn well better have something to replace it with, and that replacement better be at least an order of magnitude better than Obamacare's solutions to our health care problems.

And this is the bland partisan blindness I was talking about in my last post. There are lots of alternatives to the ACA bill, which was such a tangled mash of competing regulations and taxes that even many liberals don't like it. Pretending ACA is the only alternative is a laughable assertion. The fact is that coverage has to be leveraged against costs. Currently there are ballooning costs in Medicare and Medicaid due to items ranging from fraud, increased insurance for malpractice, over payments, unnecessary tests to cover liability, etc. The GOP focused on adding those items to the ACA bill and they were ALL REJECTED by the Democrats because of their connections to strong lawyer lobbies. The DNC will never except reform due to their intransigent connections to that lawyer lobby as well as various other lobbies. If you want a real healthcare package it has to be both reform as well as expansion. Expansion by itself will not work monetarily.


Yes, tons of alternatives that Republicans were willing to vote for like... the uhh... and the uhh... and nope, pretty much just tort reform was the only thing they ever cared about, mind you those efforts never included reigning in out of control malpractice insurance rates (free market will fix that), just making sure the insurers didn't have to pay too much of that money out to people who have the wrong leg amputated or something tiny like that. After HillaryCare got beat, the Republicans did jack shiat for more than a decade to try to fix healthcare.... they beat it with the line that they could do better, then they did absolutely nothing... I would be behind them if they had attempted comprehensive reform and failed... but they didn't, that's just a wishful reinterpretation of non-existent history... they tried the same card again this time, arguing that they could do better... Romney's slogan is even Repeal and Replace... but here's the catch for people like random here.... when pressed on "Replace it with what?" we get crickets, if anything at all. In the words of Illustrious Leader and Grand Poombah George W. Bush, "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - can't get fooled again."
 
2012-06-29 11:50:51 AM  
We need to find a way to harness the power of all the right-wing spin regarding this decision so we can drill to China and steal their resources. Or at least make an awesome sequel to Journey to the Center of the Earth. Journey to the Center of the Derp, we'll call it.
 
2012-06-29 11:51:53 AM  

WombatControl: Now, I still think Roberts was dead wrong. Congress didn't make the mandate a tax and made every effort not to call it a tax. Where Roberts went wrong is having the Court effectively re-write the statute to make it something that Congress clearly never intended it to be.


So in summary. Law is Constitutional and you agree with Obama that it is not tax.
 
2012-06-29 11:52:41 AM  

palelizard: Does the insurance provider also provide a copy to the state, like your employer does for income?


I don't know if it's also sent to the state... That's seems like something that would be done, though.

The form itself has a lot of specific information on it that would be impossible to have and/or falsify if you weren't covered by the plan.

I got audited for a few hundred dollars my deceased mother didn't claim as income on her last tax return, so I think it's a little foolish to think you can lie about having health insurance by getting a "forged" form from some guy at a Flea Market like some clown implied above.
 
2012-06-29 11:53:11 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Everyone KNEW about the penalty for being uninsured. Obama made how it operates clear. Judge Roberts deciding to semantically label it a "tax" doesn't change anything or anyone's knowledge of how it works.

Quit being retarded.


Wouldn't that involve doctors and healthcare that didn't care about pre-existing conditi... hey, wait a second...

Infernalist: Refresh my memory here, but wasn't this tax the direct cause of the so-called Whiskey Rebellion?


Which went very well for everyone involved, honestly, unless you happened to be nearby.
 
2012-06-29 11:54:45 AM  

bugontherug: Obama didn't lie. Neither did anyone else. Nobody thinks of a mandate to buy auto insurance as a tax. Neither is a mandate to buy health insurance a tax.

"B-b-b-ut Roberts said it was a tax!"

It's a "tax" you don't have to pay if you buy health insurance. Just like you avoid fines and criminal penalties by purchasing auto insurance.

Yeah, it's just that simple.


Please retake Civics 101.

States have general police powers, the federal government does not. Bringing up auto insurance mandates is stupid because those are state laws. The question is whether the federal government can mandate the purchase of insurance.

That's a very different question, and by bringing up auto insurance mandates you're missing the whole point of the way our government is structured.

Not to pick on you, because a lot of people don't seem to understand our federal system, but it depresses me that we have so many people that don't understand the most basic principle of how our government is structured.
 
2012-06-29 11:55:14 AM  

Bloody William: LouDobbsAwaaaay: RIP, meaningful, non-hyperbolic discussion of the legislation's strengths and weaknesses.

This is the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott! Goodbye, America!


I'm going to stab my baby daughter in the neck with a pair of scissors so she doesn't have to live in a world where ShariaCare is allowed to facerape Lady Liberty. WHY HAS GOD FORSAKEN US?!?!?!?
 
2012-06-29 11:55:32 AM  

Skleenar: Brandyelf: Fellow Conservative,

This week, the Supreme Court announced their decision to uphold Obamacare; electing strong conservative Republicans has never been more important.

Like you, I'm 100% committed to repealing and replacing Obamacare and I need your support to help me lead the fight. Stand with me today.

You and I know how important it is to defeat this legislation that:

Violates our individual rights.
Attacks religious freedom.
Contains half a billion dollars in cuts to Medicare.
Has resulted in higher health care costs.
Is full of massive tax increases that will devastate our economy.

On June 30th, our campaign faces an important fundraising deadline. We've set a goal of 1,000 contributors in the next 72 hours to send a message to President Obama and the liberals in Congress that we're committed to defeating Obamacare. With your help, I know we can meet this goal. Click here to contribute $25 or more.


With the court upholding the law, we must work harder than ever to fight Obamacare's out of control costs, high taxes, and assault on our freedoms.

Barack Obama and liberals in Congress might be celebrating today, but this is a battle we can and must win.

I'm counting on you for a contribution of $25 or more to stand with me against Obamacare and help me finish the fundraising quarter strong. Thanks again for your support.

Steadfast and Loyal,


LTC(R) Allen B. West
Member of Congress


I yearn for you tragically.

A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.

P.S. Stand with me today for repealing and replacing Obamacare. Every contribution helps bring us closer to our goal. Donate here.

/improvinated. For the Syndicate


Washington Irving
 
2012-06-29 11:55:34 AM  

NateGrey: Weren't moslems exempted from o-care? And...to be considered legitimate/legal, a tax has to apply to all equally?


i love how they use the archaic "moslem," just to twist the knife a little. it's childish, to be sure, but quite brilliant.
 
2012-06-29 11:58:54 AM  

qorkfiend: Shyran: qorkfiend: WombatControl: This opens the door to future challenges under the taxing power.

How so? The ruling is that the PPACA is constitutional because it's a tax. There's not much wiggle room.

Roberts essentially said that if anyone wants this thing to die, they'll have to pass new legislation. In his opinion, he stated that the penalty did not satisfy the statutory requirements for the Anti-Injunction Act, which, if it had, would have held up any further ruling by the Supreme Court until such time as the tax was assessed and collected by the IRS and someone would have to sue for a refund. However, he decided that the penalty did satisfy the constitutional requirement through Congress' power of taxation, which meant that this was the end all be all regarding the matter of this specific legislation, as opposed to a ruling further down the line if it had been upheld as constitutional AND having satisfied the requirement of the Anti-Injunction Act. Which is why Republican legislators are talking about repealing it now, as opposed to discussing further judicial challenges.

I see it like this: there are no longer any lines of attack on constitutionality without substantial modifications to the law. If Congress is going to make substantial modifications to the law, they'll just repeal it.


I see it more as, there are no longer any lines of attack on the constitutionality of it. If they want something done to the law, then they must either change it or repeal it. Alterations to it (aside from repeal, and even then...) could bring about its own set of constitutional challenges, but then those challenges would be on the wording of the new law that is attempting to change the wording of the old law.
 
2012-06-29 11:58:58 AM  
I said, "Let doctors opt out of accepting gummint insurance if they want to. Tax those who do so an additional 20%, and give those who opt in a tax break." Don't cherry-pick my posts and take things out of context.
 
2012-06-29 11:59:13 AM  

Shyran: qorkfiend: WombatControl: This opens the door to future challenges under the taxing power.

How so? The ruling is that the PPACA is constitutional because it's a tax. There's not much wiggle room.

Roberts essentially said that if anyone wants this thing to die, they'll have to pass new legislation. In his opinion, he stated that the penalty did not satisfy the statutory requirements for the Anti-Injunction Act, which, if it had, would have held up any further ruling by the Supreme Court until such time as the tax was assessed and collected by the IRS and someone would have to sue for a refund. However, he decided that the penalty did satisfy the constitutional requirement through Congress' power of taxation, which meant that this was the end all be all regarding the matter of this specific legislation, as opposed to a ruling further down the line if it had been upheld as constitutional AND having satisfied the requirement of the Anti-Injunction Act. Which is why Republican legislators are talking about repealing it now, as opposed to discussing further judicial challenges.


Actually, I'm wrong and Shyran is right - Roberts does seem to foreclose further arguments on the permissibility of the mandate as a tax. Otherwise he would have ruled on the Anti-Injunction Act. Mea maxima culpa.
 
2012-06-29 12:04:22 PM  

WombatControl: bugontherug: Obama didn't lie. Neither did anyone else. Nobody thinks of a mandate to buy auto insurance as a tax. Neither is a mandate to buy health insurance a tax.

"B-b-b-ut Roberts said it was a tax!"

It's a "tax" you don't have to pay if you buy health insurance. Just like you avoid fines and criminal penalties by purchasing auto insurance.

Yeah, it's just that simple.

Please retake Civics 101.

States have general police powers, the federal government does not. Bringing up auto insurance mandates is stupid because those are state laws. The question is whether the federal government can mandate the purchase of insurance.

That's a very different question, and by bringing up auto insurance mandates you're missing the whole point of the way our government is structured.

Not to pick on you, because a lot of people don't seem to understand our federal system, but it depresses me that we have so many people that don't understand the most basic principle of how our government is structured.


So you're ok with the state telling us what we have to buy but not the federal government?

Why should that matter?
 
2012-06-29 12:04:46 PM  
WombatControl:
i47.tinypic.com
After wading through the opinions, I get the sense that Roberts switched his vote after the initial conference. But Krauthammer et al are right about a few things:

- The Commerce Clause still has teeth - there were five votes to limit Congress' power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. That means that the substantive restrictions on Congress starting with Lopez and Morrison are still very much part of this Court's thinking. Tactically, that's a loss for the government's position right then and there.


Not so much. This case set no binding Commerce Clause precedent. And even if it had, the precedent would be narrow enough in scope to preserve the entire framework of existing commerce power jurisprudence construing the clause broadly. Roberts' non-binding dicta distinguished prior cases, rather than overturned them. As a progressive, I feel very confident after this decision in the federal government's ability to enact the kind of legislation it needs to to achieve progressive reforms.

Wombat Control:
i47.tinypic.com
That means that the Obama Administration's primary argument for the bill lost. The argument that the left-wing legal academy said was totally bonkers got a majority in the Supreme Court and is basically the law. Over the long term, that's a victory for Constitutional conservatives.


Except that it's non-binding dicta, and therefore not the law. Neither does it have any stare decisis appeal. At best, Roberts' dicta will be persuasive to the kind of future Justice already inclined to vote for a restrictive reading of the Commerce Clause. Because it has no precedential value, even a progressive "O'Connor" won't be persuaded by it as O'Connor was to uphold Roe v. Wade.

Wombat Control:
i47.tinypic.com
- The idea that the government can withhold Medicare payments to the states to force them to implement ObamaCare lost 7-2. Even left-wing justices like Justice Breyer didn't buy that argument. Once again, you have liberals getting the result they wanted, but on the substance of the matter they just got handed some big losses too. This was not only a big loss for statists, but it was a decisive one.


It was no loss at all. The reason it lost 7-2 is because it wasn't an important point of law. I assure you the federal government still has all the tools it needs to get states to do what it wants. Within a decade, maybe two, all 50 states will sign onto the Medicaid expansion because it's stupid to turn down a net increase in federal money. Again, Roberts distinguished South Dakota v. Dole, rather than overturned it. Guess how many states enacted age 21 drinking laws when Reagan threatened to withhold only 5% of federal highway funds instead of 100%... Go on... guess.

Wombat Control:
i47.tinypic.com
This opens the door to future challenges under the taxing power. Which assumes that the mandate isn't repealed in a future Congress.


Only if Congress tries to change the mandate into the kind of disguised criminal penalty at issue in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture. It doesn't need to, because a tax equivalent to the amount health insurance would cost is sufficient to persuade any rational person to buy health insurance. Why pay the tax, and get nothing, when you can buy health insurance, and at least get value?
Wombat Control:
i47.tinypic.com
Now, I still think Roberts was dead wrong. Congress didn't make the mandate a tax and made every effort not to call it a tax. Where Roberts went wrong is having the Court effectively re-write the statute to make it something that Congress clearly never intended it to be. Yes, the Court will generally interpret a statute to save it from unconstitutionality, but this went farther than that by re-writing the statute.


No it didn't. There has never been any requirement that the government call a tax a tax. The sort of requirement you're trying to impose would arise only from the worst kind of judicial activism, which is flat making up law out of thin air. All Roberts did was apply principles any person even slightly versed in constitutional tax law already knew to be true. When this whole thing started, everyone who really understood it said it would be upheld as a tax, and it was.

Wombat Control:
i47.tinypic.com
But the argument that liberals got the result they wanted while still losing on the substance seems to be the right argument based on the opinions.


No, I'm sorry1, the only thing conservatives got out of this case was some nice commerce power dicta that isn't even binding on any lower court, and a case distinguishing South Dakota v. Dole which a) was obvious, and b) still leaves the federal government all the power it needs to get states to do what it wants.

You lost. This decision is a body blow to the conservative movement. It gives the Court's imprimatur to Obamacare, which will enhance its popularity because it enhances its legitimacy. And it changes nothing in the existing framework of the modern regulatory federal government.

1Okay, no I'm not sorry in the slightest. Suck it, cons.
 
2012-06-29 12:06:10 PM  
So Mitt Willard Romney lied about not increasing taxes in Massachusetts, thanks for clearing that up Republicans.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-06-29 12:07:16 PM  

hubiestubert: DGS:
QFT. And it still surprises me to this day that the time has come where we agree on topics like this.

Common sense isn't necessarily common, but at some point, folks need to put down the pitchforks, and realize that Democrats and Republicans aren't enemies. They are often coming from different perspectives, but lately, the Wing Nut Brigade is dominating the debate with ranting and raving, and that isn't good for the process.

We need to debate the issues, not the "sides" but examine each issue, and then compromise on issues. That is how our representative democracy is supposed to work. We are killing that with politics played like a gottverdammt sport...


And I think it's excellent. Frankly speaking, you're another one that surprised me. I was quite certain you and I would never agree upon anything, and here we are. It's refreshing.

I am pretty heavily left-leaning (I know, I know, so rare around here), and routinely have debates with friends I grew up with that appear to be about 85% heavily right. Some of them (a very rare few, but that's still some) I've had to terminate communication with.. they refused to do anything more than spout talking points and sounded batshiat insane. Most of the others are courteous even if we disagree, and we can actually discuss/argue points. I can appreciate their beliefs and opinions, even if I don't agree with them. I try to help them understand an alternate opinion that I feel is not insignificant. Sometimes I score points, if you will, and sometimes they do.

There are times I want to scream and rant and rave at them, but I see what the TeaParty is like, and I recall the people I've cut myself off from, and that brings me back down to talking.. if, at times, with words laced with snark to a level that even my wife finds uncomfortable. In the end, though, I see one side whose version of compromise is "Do it our way or we crash the process into the nearest brock wall" when in the minority, and if they have the majority, their position is, "we were elected and we are the voice of the people. Fall in line and show respect for the leaders and the people that put us here to make things as we wish."

Every time I hear/read spin like "Obama had iron-clad majorities and didn't do x" I wonder what world they live in.. then rememeber they're comfortable with fabrications and hoping no one notices. Especially from people I grew up with that borrowed the talking point and don't know what cloture is or why it's at an all time high and has been for several years.

As for PPACA, I'd prefer single payer, but get it that I can't just have it my way. I see this is a boon for progress and moving forward rather than stagnating in a system that started its death throes quite some time ago. I also find it fascinating how many clinicians I know in the private sector that want PPACA to go away, and how many clinicians I know in the public sector that welcome PPACA. Having worked with data and EMRs for community health centers around the US for the last 7 years, I've seen a lot of the progress many sites have made, from big cities to rural areas so remote people are driving an hour (or more, for some) to get healthcare. The human face of this seems to be so easily discarded by some and it both sickens and saddens me.
 
2012-06-29 12:08:34 PM  

keylock71: I got audited for a few hundred dollars my deceased mother didn't claim as income on her last tax return, so I think it's a little foolish to think you can lie about having health insurance by getting a "forged" form from some guy at a Flea Market like some clown implied above.


Wait, wait, wait... wait. You mean I can't rely on a stranger in an open air public market cheaply selling forged official documents in order to defraud my government of a couple grand a year? WTF is this country coming to? Barackhemer-Rouge FrancObama is such a freaking disease! This is going to turn out worse than that mythical Holocaust the Jews keep claim is going to happen.
 
2012-06-29 12:08:43 PM  
BTW I love people trying to explain what Roberts' explained in his opinion and offering up explanations that are nowhere close to what he said.
 
2012-06-29 12:09:46 PM  

WombatControl: Please retake Civics 101.

States have general police powers, the federal government does not. Bringing up auto insurance mandates is stupid because those are state laws. The question is whether the federal government can mandate the purchase of insurance.

That's a very different question, and by bringing up auto insurance mandates you're missing the whole point of the way our government is structured.

Not to pick on you, because a lot of people don't seem to understand our federal system, but it depresses me that we have so many people that don't understand the most basic principle of how our government is structured.



No, I understand the difference completely. What you don't understand is the relevant point of comparison. I'm not arguing for the constitutional legitimacy of Obamacare because of auto liability insurance. I'm arguing that the individual mandate is no more a tax increase than a mandate to buy auto liability insurance is a tax increase.

Obama didn't lie, and Obamacare, while a valid exercise of the tax power, isn't really a tax increase.
 
2012-06-29 12:09:52 PM  

WhyteRaven74: BTW I love people trying to explain what Roberts' explained in his opinion and offering up explanations that are nowhere close to what he said.


Would I be one of those people?
 
2012-06-29 12:12:15 PM  

palelizard: keylock71: I got audited for a few hundred dollars my deceased mother didn't claim as income on her last tax return, so I think it's a little foolish to think you can lie about having health insurance by getting a "forged" form from some guy at a Flea Market like some clown implied above.

Wait, wait, wait... wait. You mean I can't rely on a stranger in an open air public market cheaply selling forged official documents in order to defraud my government of a couple grand a year?


Absolutely... His table is set up right next to the guy selling Celine Dion, Janet Jackson and Milli Vanili pirated CDs and the lady selling her hand crafted kitty and unicorn sweaters.
 
2012-06-29 12:13:08 PM  

Shaggy_C: Spade: So we can put a $50,000 per procedure tax on abortions, right?

I don't think you'd get away with something that outrageous, but perhaps it would be a good idea for some conniving Republican congressman to introduce legislation along those lines. A "no abortion deduction' on your taxes that allows you to take a $300 deduction unless someone in your household has had an abortion. Should definitely ruffle some feathers and get the point across nicely.


This actually wouldn't be a bad idea. I'd just want to see an exemption for medically necessary abortions (for fatal fetuses and diseases like Tay-Sachs), and rape/incest. Add those in, and then we can talk.

cchris_39: Yep. We now live in an a country where the government can tax our very behavior and half the poulation is elated about it.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security.......


You know what? You get to be the lucky person I ask this:

How, exactly, is this a sacrifice of liberty?
 
2012-06-29 12:13:54 PM  

Shyran: Would I be one of those people?


Uh, no.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-06-29 12:14:28 PM  

friday13: cchris_39: Yep. We now live in an a country where the government can tax our very behavior and half the poulation is elated about it.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security.......

You know what? You get to be the lucky person I ask this:

How, exactly, is this a sacrifice of liberty?


Be sure to hold your breath as you wait for the reply.
 
2012-06-29 12:15:00 PM  

Infernalist: Brandyelf: I just got an email from Rep. Allen West (R-eally have no idea why I'm on this wacky list) Thought I'd share:
------------------------


Fellow Conservative,

This week, the Supreme Court announced their decision to uphold Obamacare; electing strong conservative Republicans has never been more important.

Like you, I'm 100% committed to repealing and replacing Obamacare and I need your support to help me lead the fight. Stand with me today.

You and I know how important it is to defeat this legislation that:

Violates our individual rights.
Attacks religious freedom.
Contains half a billion dollars in cuts to Medicare.
Has resulted in higher health care costs.
Is full of massive tax increases that will devastate our economy.

On June 30th, our campaign faces an important fundraising deadline. We've set a goal of 1,000 contributors in the next 72 hours to send a message to President Obama and the liberals in Congress that we're committed to defeating Obamacare. With your help, I know we can meet this goal. Click here to contribute $25 or more.


With the court upholding the law, we must work harder than ever to fight Obamacare's out of control costs, high taxes, and assault on our freedoms.

Barack Obama and liberals in Congress might be celebrating today, but this is a battle we can and must win.

I'm counting on you for a contribution of $25 or more to stand with me against Obamacare and help me finish the fundraising quarter strong. Thanks again for your support.

Steadfast and Loyal,


LTC(R) Allen B. West
Member of Congress

P.S. Stand with me today for repealing and replacing Obamacare. Every contribution helps bring us closer to our goal. Donate here.

Email em back with a question.

"Replace it with what? Details, please."


Republican health care plan:

1. Be rich

2. Don't get sick
 
2012-06-29 12:15:01 PM  

Infernalist:
P.S. Stand with me today for repealing and replacing Obamacare. Every contribution helps bring us closer to our goal. Donate here.

Email em back with a question.

"Replace it with what? Details, please."


The Daily Show did a great bit on this last night. Rmoney was giving a speech about repeal and replace...he was listing all the things that should be addressed by the new legislation, turns out everything he wants the new legislation to address are already included in Obamacare.
 
2012-06-29 12:15:10 PM  

friday13: How, exactly, is this a sacrifice of liberty?


Didnt you get the memo?

Its a dictatorship!

Where elected officials in two branches of government approve, and the third appointed branch approve of something.
 
2012-06-29 12:16:36 PM  

qorkfiend: WombatControl: but this went farther than that by re-writing the statute.

Did they? What did the court materially change about the statute? It works exactly the same way now as it did before.


Congress and the President made it clear that the mandate was not ever intended to be a tax. For instance, it's not enforced by criminal or civil penalties. If you don't pay a tax, the IRS can garnish your wages. If you don't pay the mandate, the IRS can't do anything other than hold your tax refund.

What Robert did wasn't anything really radical - I still think he was wrong, but even I have to admit it's a thin line between saving a statute to preserve its constitutionality and saying that a statute is something Congress clearly did not intend it to be. The dissent seems to have the better argument on the use of the tax power, but it's a close call either way.
 
2012-06-29 12:16:40 PM  

Infernalist: Corvus: Umm here is a little history lessons to you tea party US history "experts".

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x310]

A source of government revenue was needed to pay the bond holders to whom the debt was owed. By December 1790, Hamilton believed import duties, which were the government's primary source of revenue, had been raised as high as was feasible.[4] He therefore promoted passage of an excise tax on domestically distilled spirits. This was to be the first tax levied by the national government on a domestic product.[5] Although taxes were politically unpopular, Hamilton believed the whiskey excise was a luxury tax that would be the least objectionable tax the government could levy.[6] In this, he had the support of some social reformers, who hoped a "sin tax" would raise public awareness about the harmful effects of alcohol.[7] The whiskey excise act, sometimes known as the "Whiskey Act", became law in March 1791.[8] George Washington defined the revenue districts, appointed the revenue supervisors and inspectors, and set their pay in November 1791.[9]


We had taxes on "behavior" in 1791!!!

Refresh my memory here, but wasn't this tax the direct cause of the so-called Whiskey Rebellion?


Yep. And Washington sent armed troops down to kill those traitors.

The "Tea Party" now has more in common with the Whiskey Rebellion traitors then the actual people who did the Boston Tea Party.
 
2012-06-29 12:16:58 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Shyran: Would I be one of those people?

Uh, no.


Was honestly curious. I'm an autodidact who's not a lawyer by trade, so I look for non-whargarble challenges to my interpretations as a learning experience.
 
2012-06-29 12:18:07 PM  
The latest derpitude to be posted on my Facebook Timeline:
img.photobucket.com
/time to unsubscribe, sorry ur dumb
 
2012-06-29 12:19:07 PM  

WombatControl: Congress and the President made it clear that the mandate was not ever intended to be a tax. For instance, it's not enforced by criminal or civil penalties. If you don't pay a tax, the IRS can garnish your wages. If you don't pay the mandate, the IRS can't do anything other than hold your tax refund.


And? That was all in the law prior to the ruling.
 
2012-06-29 12:22:42 PM  

keylock71: Absolutely... His table is set up right next to the guy selling Celine Dion, Janet Jackson and Milli Vanili pirated CDs and the lady selling her hand crafted kitty and unicorn sweaters.


Don't knock on Shady Dave or Li'l Tammy Catz just because of who they set up next to, man. Dave's got a learning disability and Tammy's husband has been out of work since they closed the mill three years ago--and Tammy's been saving money so she can get a Precious Moments franchise and some initial stock, you know, to expand her business.
 
2012-06-29 12:23:05 PM  

star_topology: The latest derpitude to be posted on my Facebook Timeline:
[img.photobucket.com image 640x580]
/time to unsubscribe, sorry ur dumb


Non compliance excise taxes have existed way before the Affordable Care Act.
 
2012-06-29 12:23:08 PM  

pxsteel: Sorry, do you know that there are millions that legally don't have to file.



Sorry that you are okay with it, and seem to actively suggest people do it. Personal responsibility surrenders.
 
2012-06-29 12:23:52 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So you're ok with the state telling us what we have to buy but not the federal government?

Why should that matter?


Read Federalists 28 and 46.

The short version is that if you don't like the way that a state exercizes its general police powers you can vote with your feet and leave. You don't have nearly the same ability when the federal government does something you don't like.

The states were intended to be "laboratories of democracy" where different approaches to problems could be concurrently developed.

The states are smaller and generally more responsive to their populations than a national government.

The fact that you're asking this question suggests that you should do a lot more reading about how and why the government was structured under the Constitution the way it was. Because that's a question that was asked and determined numerous times by the Framers.
 
2012-06-29 12:24:07 PM  

star_topology: The latest derpitude to be posted on my Facebook Timeline:
[img.photobucket.com image 640x580]
/time to unsubscribe, sorry ur dumb


Eh, I got sucked into a facebook discussion where my brothers moronic friend actually stated that the GOP is going to appeal the court ruling. Facebook is the dumber version of Fark politics threads.
 
2012-06-29 12:24:51 PM  
memeorama.com
 
2012-06-29 12:24:53 PM  

cchris_39: OTOH, watching libs rejoice about pouring their own money into the coffers of big business does provide some comfort.



Much better to cover everyone and lower costs instead of our tax dollars right now going to deadbeats who walk into an ER and get free care.

/when did Republicans hate big business? Why do you hate the free market?
 
2012-06-29 12:27:19 PM  

WombatControl: The short version is that if you don't like the way that a state exercizes its general police powers you can vote with your feet and leave. You don't have nearly the same ability when the federal government does something you don't like.


Hmm your right what can you VOTE with for the federal government? Hmmm you can't VOTE with your feet. If only there was something we could use to VOTE for in the federal government?

Anyone know of something you can use to VOTE with on the federal government so we don't have this tyranny he speaks of? If only we had another way of VOTING.
 
2012-06-29 12:28:01 PM  

jst3p: star_topology: The latest derpitude to be posted on my Facebook Timeline:
[img.photobucket.com image 640x580]
/time to unsubscribe, sorry ur dumb

Eh, I got sucked into a facebook discussion where my brothers moronic friend actually stated that the GOP is going to appeal the court ruling. Facebook is the dumber version of Fark politics threads.


That actually made me LOL.
 
2012-06-29 12:28:04 PM  

jst3p: star_topology: The latest derpitude to be posted on my Facebook Timeline:
[img.photobucket.com image 640x580]
/time to unsubscribe, sorry ur dumb

Eh, I got sucked into a facebook discussion where my brothers moronic friend actually stated that the GOP is going to appeal the court ruling. Facebook is the dumber version of Fark politics threads.


Yeah, except that the GOP doesn't have an alternative plan to AHC (SHOCKER!)

And Youtube > Facebook > Fark PoliticsTM?
 
2012-06-29 12:28:35 PM  

qorkfiend: WombatControl: Congress and the President made it clear that the mandate was not ever intended to be a tax. For instance, it's not enforced by criminal or civil penalties. If you don't pay a tax, the IRS can garnish your wages. If you don't pay the mandate, the IRS can't do anything other than hold your tax refund.

And? That was all in the law prior to the ruling.


What's your argument here? Yes, that was all in the law prior to the ruling - which is why the mandate shouldn't have been interpreted to be a tax. I'm not arguing that Roberts literally re-wrote the law, I'm arguing that his interpretation of the law has the effect of re-writing it to be a tax. It's the same point that's made at some length in Scalia's dissent.
 
2012-06-29 12:29:28 PM  

WombatControl: Read Federalists 28 and 46.


Can you tell me when the congress of the United states voted on those Federalist Papers and made them part of the constitution of the United States or into laws?
 
2012-06-29 12:30:42 PM  

Weaver95: i'm not sure the GOP has figured out exactly what the propaganda spin on this issue is supposed to be: Limbaugh was saying that 'Obama lied' and that SCOTUS just handed the GOP a victory. others in the GOP blogosphere are saying they're going to move to canada, or shoot Justice Roberts, or 'go galt'. there's a persistent fantasy among some GOP voters that the Republicans can just dummy up another lawsuit next year and automagically repeal Obamacare in 2013-14.


I really wish they'd focus on repealing something that has actually hurt people. Like maybe marijuana prohibition.

/non-smoker
 
2012-06-29 12:31:09 PM  

WombatControl: What's your argument here? Yes, that was all in the law prior to the ruling - which is why the mandate shouldn't have been interpreted to be a tax. I'm not arguing that Roberts literally re-wrote the law, I'm arguing that his interpretation of the law has the effect of re-writing it to be a tax. It's the same point that's made at some length in Scalia's dissent.


Psst the tax argument was actually an argument (not the only one) used by the Obama administration in their argument that it was constitutional. But don't like the facts stop your derp.
 
2012-06-29 12:31:29 PM  

WombatControl: Read Federalists 28 and 46.



I can't find that in the Constitution or signed by the majority of the founders

Can you help me locate it?
 
2012-06-29 12:31:52 PM  
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
Displayed 50 of 459 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report