PDA

View Full Version : Obama 20 minute countdown to Obamacare


Pages : [1] 2 3

petegz28
06-28-2012, 08:43 AM
...ruling to be out soon...

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 08:44 AM
Predictions?

petegz28
06-28-2012, 08:45 AM
Predictions?

I say Mandate gets struck down, the rest gets upheld.

patteeu
06-28-2012, 08:52 AM
I like Literature's prediction that Scalia votes to uphold. It's bold. If that happens, I think it will be a 7-2 decision to uphold and there will be much praise in the mainstream media for the SCotUS over the next few days.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2012, 08:52 AM
I say Mandate gets struck down, the rest gets upheld.

I suspect that's among the least likely of scenarios.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2012, 08:54 AM
I like Literature's prediction that Scalia votes to uphold. It's bold. If that happens, I think it will be a 7-2 decision to uphold.

That may seem unlikely to many, but it wouldn't surprise me really. The gravitas of this decision may overcome the political theatrics.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 08:55 AM
I like Literature's prediction that Scalia votes to uphold. It's bold. If that happens, I think it will be a 7-2 decision to uphold and there will be much praise in the mainstream media for the SCotUS over the next few days.

If it is 7-2, the 2 will be Scalia and Thomas.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 08:56 AM
I suspect that's among the least likely of scenarios.

How do you figure, sports fan?

patteeu
06-28-2012, 08:56 AM
If it is 7-2, the 2 will be Scalia and Thomas.

Our predictions appear to be at odds. Hopefully we won't find out which of us is right.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2012, 08:58 AM
How do you figure, sports fan?

No mandate = no practical funding mechanism

If the mandate falls, the entire act is unsustainable.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2012, 08:59 AM
Our predictions appear to be at odds. Hopefully we won't find out which of us is right.

I'm actually hoping YOU are right. RWNJ reaction would be comedy GOLD. Heh.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 08:59 AM
No mandate = no practical funding mechanism

If the mandate falls, the entire act is unsustainable.

I know, that doesn't mean they won't rule the mandate unconstitutional but the rest is.

Saul Good
06-28-2012, 09:01 AM
No mandate = no practical funding mechanism

If the mandate falls, the entire act is unsustainable.

The court isn't ruling on its sustainability, just the constitutionality of it.

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:03 AM
No mandate = no practical funding mechanism

If the mandate falls, the entire act is unsustainable.

BINGO:thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:04 AM
The court isn't ruling on its sustainability, just the constitutionality of it.

and why for political purposes to satisfy both sides of the aisle very much like the immigration law. But the bottom line is like Kotter said. The mandate is the sole financial mechanism.:thumb:

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2012, 09:07 AM
The court isn't ruling on its sustainability, just the constitutionality of it.

I understand that; however, as a matter of public policy the two are inextricably linked. For the SC to rule as Pete is suggesting, would be an entirely cowardly way of deflecting the issue. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I wouldn't exptect Roberts to allow such a cowardly dodge. Perhaps I'm wrong. I certainly hope not though--it would sink Roberts legacy in my opinion.

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:07 AM
After watching Roberts do what he did with Immigration I don't trust anything this court takes on.

If this is upheld were "HOSED":shake:

FD
06-28-2012, 09:07 AM
I'm betting the mandate goes, and 50-50 on the rest of it. Should be fun to watch the reactions either way.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:08 AM
It has been upheld

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 09:09 AM
The individual mandate survives as a tax.

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:09 AM
I understand that; however, as a matter of public policy the two are inextricably linked. For the SC to rule as Pete is suggesting, would be an entirely cowardly way of deflecting the issue. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I wouldn't exptect Roberts to allow such a cowardly dodge. Perhaps I'm wrong though. I certainly hope not though--it would sink Roberts legacy in my opinion.

Roberts really surprised me on the Immigration vote.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:09 AM
per scotusblog, Obamacare survives. The mandate is ruled to be a tax.

edit: weird, drudge report directly conflicts with scotusblog. Maybe Drudge had an itchy trigger finger

edit2: scotusblog now hedging, saying its complicated, still figuring it out

eazyb81
06-28-2012, 09:10 AM
mandate survives!

Hospital stocks are going through the roof and HMOs are getting crushed.

Donger
06-28-2012, 09:10 AM
Mandate struck down per CNN.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:11 AM
OK, now scotusblog is confidently reaffirming that Obamacare survives, completely, in full

edit: almost in full. Apparently the medicaid provision was limited somehow

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2012, 09:11 AM
mandate survives! .....

That's NOT what CNN is saying... :hmmm:

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:12 AM
Drudge is now on board with scotusblog

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:13 AM
That's NOT what CNN is saying... :hmmm:

I'm so confused...:huh:

eazyb81
06-28-2012, 09:13 AM
That's NOT what CNN is saying... :hmmm:

They are wrong. AP has confirmed it is upheld.

Bump
06-28-2012, 09:13 AM
I bet the health insurance lobbyists are going NUTS right now.

HERE TAKE ANOTHER MILLION!

Like a crazy day on wall street or something

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:13 AM
from scotusblog:

The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

Donger
06-28-2012, 09:14 AM
[Updated at 10:06 a.m. ET] In a landmark decision that will impact the nation for decades, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, ruling that requiring people to have health insurance violates the Constitution.

CNN

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:14 AM
Bloomberg is saying everything has been upheld, so is CNBC

Donger
06-28-2012, 09:15 AM
He, so basically, they are all frantically reading the ruling.

jjjayb
06-28-2012, 09:15 AM
Does it really matter what the supreme court says? After the recent ruling in AZ and Obama's reaction to it, I'm beginning to wonder. After all, they are just an unelected group of peope right?

FD
06-28-2012, 09:15 AM
Sounds like the ruling says the mandate isnt validated by the commerce clause, CNN ran with that, but Roberts wrote a narrow ruling saying it counts as a tax and so is allowed.

Bump
06-28-2012, 09:15 AM
Bloomberg is saying everything has been upheld, so is CNBC

no bueno

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2012, 09:15 AM
[Updated at 10:06 a.m. ET] In a landmark decision that will impact the nation for decades, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, ruling that requiring people to have health insurance violates the Constitution.

CNN

CNN appears to be wrong according to other sites.... :hmmm:

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:15 AM
[Updated at 10:06 a.m. ET] In a landmark decision that will impact the nation for decades, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, ruling that requiring people to have health insurance violates the Constitution.

CNN

Lets all laugh at CNN together

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:16 AM
Roberts really surprised me on the Immigration vote.

this was a tell for sure:thumb:

FD
06-28-2012, 09:17 AM
If Roberts put it through as a tax, thats actually pretty clever. Takes a potential 5-4 liberal decision that could theoretically expand fed government power a lot, and turn it into a 6-3 decision that simply reaffirms the fed gov's tax writing powers.

I'm sure the liberal wing will write concurrences.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:17 AM
I don't know what's worse, this passing or the fact we have to watch Pelosi gloat?

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 09:17 AM
Lets all laugh at CNN together

Yea I was watching CNN and for some reason even from the start it 'felt' like they were going blind. They really fucked that up.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:17 AM
Sounds like the ruling says the mandate isnt validated by the commerce clause, CNN ran with that, but Roberts wrote a narrow ruling saying it counts as a tax and so is allowed.

The supreme court took the easy way out. They decided to call the fine a tax, so the commerce clause does not even apply.

I thought they would do this before the arguments, but after the arguments after they seemed to dismiss that it was a tax, I thought there was no way in hell they'd call it a tax.

I'm shocked, really

blaise
06-28-2012, 09:18 AM
So, it is a tax then.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:18 AM
So Congress and Obama swore this wasn't a tax...but now they will embrace it as such...

FD
06-28-2012, 09:19 AM
The supreme court took the easy way out. They decided to call the fine a tax, so the commerce clause does not even apply.

I thought they would do this before the arguments, but after the arguments after they seemed to dismiss that it was a tax, I thought there was no way in hell they'd call it a tax.

I'm shocked, really

For whatever reason the Obama administration refused to take the stand that it was a tax, even though in retrospect it seems like their strongest argument.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 09:19 AM
If Roberts put it through as a tax, thats actually pretty clever. Takes a potential 5-4 liberal decision that could theoretically expand fed government power a lot, and turn it into a 6-3 decision that simply reaffirms the fed gov's tax writing powers.

I'm sure the liberal wing will write concurrences.

Wasn't the clever part writing the law so it would be a tax?

FD
06-28-2012, 09:19 AM
Fox News headline: "Breaking News: Obama Raises Taxes!"

FD
06-28-2012, 09:20 AM
I'm betting the mandate goes, and 50-50 on the rest of it. Should be fun to watch the reactions either way.

Also, remind me never to publicly post anymore predictions seconds before the true outcome is revealed. :doh!:

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2012, 09:20 AM
So Congress and Obama swore this wasn't a tax...but now they will embrace it as such...

If the SC insists on those semantics, fine; all's well then ends well. :)

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:21 AM
So Congress and Obama swore this wasn't a tax...but now they will embrace it as such...

It's what Marxists do:thumb:

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:22 AM
For whatever reason the Obama administration refused to take the stand that it was a tax, even though in retrospect it seems like their strongest argument.

The supreme court bailed their asses out. All along they should have called it a tax, and realized that it would be foolish to needlessly test the boundary of the commerce clause.

Roberts and Kennedy decided to take out a sharpie and write "this is a tax" into the law.

J Diddy
06-28-2012, 09:22 AM
Yea I was watching CNN and for some reason even from the start it 'felt' like they were going blind. They really ****ed that up.

Yeah, I got pissed and then happy all at once.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2012, 09:22 AM
It's what Marxists do:thumb:

And, apparently, the S.C. Heh.

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:22 AM
Fox News headline: "Breaking News: Obama Raises Taxes!"

How is this not true?

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 09:22 AM
Let's all thank W Bush for the Roberts nomination. Those Bushes sure can pick 'em.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2012, 09:23 AM
Let's all thank W Bush for the Roberts nomination. Those Bushes sure can pick 'em. At least in this case, he did. Heh. :thumb:

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 09:23 AM
Yeah, I got pissed and then happy all at once.

Not sure if I was pissed at first I mean...I just really wanted this whole thing to play out through the courts and see what came of it.

But when CNN first started talking it didn't feel right.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:23 AM
Welcome to AmeriKa!

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:25 AM
More clarity on the medicaid thing.

The supreme court said that if the feds want to increase medicaid funding and put requirements on that new money, thats fine, but given how huge medicaid is, and how long its been in place, they cant retroactively threaten to yank ALL of medicaid if they dont comply with new requirements.

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:26 AM
And, apparently, the S.C. Heh.

Kagan Soto Ginsburg for sure. I was talking about Obama and his minions and how they talked out both sides of their mouths i.e. this not being a tax.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 09:27 AM
A Bush appointee turns out to be a progressive and judicial Expet the same from Romney.

Here's my take: the mandate is unconstitutional but the bill was never passed as a tax nor does the language call it a tax. This was a point that I argued using precedent.

I would think, and I am hoping once the whole thing is read and parsed, that this decision means Congress can pass the bill providing "they" write and pass it as a tax BUT this part should be for Congress to change not any judge. If not then those justices calling a tax for the congress have written legislation on the bench.

"Nullify Now!" should be the new slogan.
Now is time to invoke the The Tenth Amendment and nullify this law...the whole thing even.

Getting back to Roberts and why the left goes ballistic when a conservative judge appears for nomination—the left knows their laws are indefensible under strict/original construction. So they have to cry about stare decisis. Since Roberts was big on this point I never fully trusted him. He's not a justice to restore the Constitution.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:27 AM
Kagan Soto Ginsburg for sure. I was talking about Obama and his minions and how they talked out both sides of their mouths i.e. this not being a tax.

You're supposed to pretend they swore this was not a tax.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 09:27 AM
But when CNN first started talking it didn't feel right.

I assume they were too busy programming a needlessly complicated interactive graphic hologram.

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 09:28 AM
I assume they were too busy programming a needlessly complicated interactive graphic hologram.

Haha. Oh man I remember that whole thing its like...hey guys I don't need this to be TRON just inform me.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:28 AM
A Bush appointee turns out to be a progressive and judicial Expet the same from Romney.

Here's my take: the mandate is unconstitutional but the bill was never passed as a tax nor does the language call it a tax. This was a point that I argued using precedent.

I would think, and I am hoping once the whole thing is read and parsed, that this decision means Congress can pass the bill providing "they" write and pass it as a tax BUT this part should be for Congress to change not any judge. If not then those justices calling a tax for the congress have written legislation on the bench.

"Nullify Now!" should be the new slogan.
Now is time to invoke the The Tenth Amendment and nullify this law...the whole thing even.

Getting back to Roberts and why the left goes ballistic when a conservative judge appears for nomination—the left knows their laws are indefensible under strict/original construction. So they have to cry about stare decisis. Since Roberts was big on this point I never fully trusted him. He's not a justice to restore the Constitution.

Ironic that none of the Left wanted him, isn't it?

mikey23545
06-28-2012, 09:28 AM
So a tax you have to pay is not a mandate?

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:28 AM
Uhhh.... wow.

Shocking development. The decision is NOT 6-3, it is 5-4. Kennedy is now reading his dissent.

The Chief Justice joined the liberals.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 09:29 AM
So, it is a tax then.

Only since enough SC justices re-wrote the law. This is so obviously judicial activism when they should have sent that back to Congress to fix—not themselves.

Donger
06-28-2012, 09:30 AM
Part of me is actually glad. This removes a rather large rallying cry that Obama would have been given if it were struck down. Now he gets to defend something a majority of Americans wanted struck down.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 09:30 AM
Here's my take: the mandate is unconstitutional

Its one thing to give this take beforehand. Now, it just seems kind of silly.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:30 AM
More details, the supreme court in the opinion specifically noted that if it was not a tax, then it would have violated the commerce clause. Ginsberg and the liberals disagreed, saying they believe it was fine under the commerce clause, but since Roberts decided to call it a tax, that doesn't matter.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:30 AM
More details, the supreme court in the opinion specifically noted that if it was not a tax, then it would have violated the commerce clause. Ginsberg and the liberals disagreed, saying they believe it was fine under the commerce clause, but since Roberts decided to call it a tax, that doesn't matter.

Not sure what gives him the authority to re-write the law?

blaise
06-28-2012, 09:32 AM
Part of me is actually glad. This removes a rather large rallying cry that Obama would have been given if it were struck down. Now he gets to defend something a majority of Americans wanted struck down.

I agree with that.

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:32 AM
Sounds like the ruling says the mandate isnt validated by the commerce clause, CNN ran with that, but Roberts wrote a narrow ruling saying it counts as a tax and so is allowed.

We just have to repeal the tax and this whole thing is "NEUTERED". If this asinine tax doesn't motivate "We The People" to the polls EVEN MORE I don't know what will.

Repeal of tax coming soon:thumb:

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:32 AM
From scotusblog:

In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

I am flabbergasted. The chief justice, and only the chief justice, provided the 5th vote. NO ONE saw this coming.

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 09:34 AM
Did the govn't lawyers argue it as a tax?

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:34 AM
This could very easily come back to haunt Obama in November.

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:35 AM
Now he gets to defend something a majority of Americans wanted struck down.

Precisely my point with even greater motivation for "We The People" to the polls:thumb:

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:35 AM
Did the govn't lawyers argue it as a tax?

I thought they said that it wasn't? I know there were questions asked by the SCOTUS about how you can say it isn't a tax then say it is then say it isn't, etc.

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:35 AM
From scotusblog:



I am flabbergasted. The chief justice, and only the chief justice, provided the 5th vote. NO ONE saw this coming.

I did after watching Roberts with the Immigration vote.:thumb:

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 09:36 AM
I thought they said that it wasn't? I know there were questions asked by the SCOTUS about how you can say it isn't a tax then say it is then say it isn't, etc.

Yea I am asking from lack of knowledge was Roberts the one that basically called this a tax or was that an angle of the govt lawyers they were advocating for. I know Obama said it wasn't

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 09:39 AM
This could very easily come back to haunt Obama in November.

This has me looking at Romney—somewhat anyway — due to his promise, if I can come to trust THAT.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:39 AM
Yea I am asking from lack of knowledge was Roberts the one that basically called this a tax or was that an angle of the govt lawyers they were advocating for. I know Obama said it wasn't

I think it was Roberts but I don't recall if the billw as written as this being a tax?

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:40 AM
Yea I am asking from lack of knowledge was Roberts the one that basically called this a tax or was that an angle of the govt lawyers they were advocating for. I know Obama said it wasn't

The feds desperately tried to convince them that it was basically a tax, and they, seemingly, were shot down in oral arguments.

Roberts is basically the only one calling it a tax. The four on the right disagreed, and the 4 on the left, who thinks it could survive the commerce clause but couldn't find a 5th vote for that, was forced to agree with him.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 09:42 AM
I did after watching Roberts with the Immigration vote.:thumb:

Yeah, that was another clue for me as well. I also saw an article where he may not want the SC to be seen as partisan for the right. So he plays politics instead of going by rule of law, we know now. Just aweful. Wonder if Obama's threats to claim the court as a tool of the Republicans had anything to do with it? I'd love to see the behind the scenes dialogue.

I was surprised Kennedy's dissent, even called the entire law unConstitutional.

I thought he would have struck down the mandate but left the remainder alone. I expected the progressive judges to decide to re-write the law to make it Constitutional. Even some of the questions they asked showed some indication they thought like that when they compared to past legislation, that were a tax.
The left is right, Bush is to blame.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:42 AM
The feds desperately tried to convince them that it was basically a tax, and they, seemingly, were shot down in oral arguments.

Roberts is basically the only one calling it a tax. The four on the right disagreed, and the 4 on the left, who thinks it could survive the commerce clause but couldn't find a 5th vote for that, was forced to agree with him.

But fi the bill wasn't written as it being a tax how can Roberts re-write it?

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:43 AM
But fi the bill wasn't written as it being a tax how can Roberts re-write it?

Like I said, by taking out a sharpie and writing "this is a tax" over the fine.

I don't know, I'm sure he's got some complex reasoning in there somewhere.

edit: Roberts said in his opinion that the lack of the word "tax" is not controlling. I assume he's got some kind of "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a duck" reasoning in there defining the characteristics of a tax.

Donger
06-28-2012, 09:43 AM
WASHINGTON, DC - House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement after the Supreme Court announced its ruling on the president’s health care law:

“The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare.”

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:44 AM
This has me looking at Romney—somewhat anyway — due to his promise, if I can come to trust THAT.

Romney is a pussy and won't repeal this tax because he will want to tweak it for political purposes although he is out there now saying he will repeal it:rolleyes:. It will be up to "We The People" to twist Romney's arm to repeal this tax

Donger
06-28-2012, 09:44 AM
Nice reaction from the market.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 09:46 AM
I thought they said that it wasn't? I know there were questions asked by the SCOTUS about how you can say it isn't a tax then say it is then say it isn't, etc.

Something is what it is. You can call a dog a cat, but its still a dog.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 09:47 AM
I think it was Roberts but I don't recall if the billw as written as this being a tax?

No, it wasn't and other legal scholars said this was why it would create a problem for Obama—it wasn't passed as a tax under the tax and spend clause.
I brought this point up in a thread against a progressive defending the bill.
So the majority of justices did what was the job of Congress to fix.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:47 AM
Something is what it is. You can call a dog a cat, but its still a dog.

You can't write a bill that does not call it a tax then the court re-write it so it does. Well, you can but you're not supposed too.

Setsuna
06-28-2012, 09:47 AM
Nice reaction from the market.

What reaction? Dude I'm scared and pissed. I can barely pay my bills and now this crap?

Bewbies
06-28-2012, 09:47 AM
Is anyone not shocked by this?

La literatura
06-28-2012, 09:47 AM
But fi the bill wasn't written as it being a tax how can Roberts re-write it?

The statute calls it a "Penalty." Roberts is saying, you can call that a penalty or whatever you want, but it's legally a tax burden upon an individual.

That is completely legitimate for a judge to do.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 09:48 AM
This has me looking at Romney—somewhat anyway — due to his promise, if I can come to trust THAT.

For some reason, when Romney rails against a mandate to have health insurance, it just rings hollow and seems kind of phony. I'm not sure why...

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:48 AM
The money line:

'Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.'

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 09:49 AM
Something is what it is. You can call a dog a cat, but its still a dog.

Not in this case because the Ds made a point that it wasn't a tax with the knowledge that passing a new tax would be unpopular and they knew it would cost them elections. This is why the SC shouldn't be re-writing the law for Congress as it wasn't even their intent it be a tax.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:50 AM
Is anyone not shocked by this?

I doubt it. Even people who thought it would be upheld predicted 6-3, with Kennedy dragging Roberts behind him.

No one predicted Kennedy throwing the whole law out, and Roberts saying "nah, I don't think so"

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 09:50 AM
For some reason, when Romney rails against a mandate to have health insurance, it just rings hollow and seems kind of phony. I'm not sure why...

Unless, you look at where he said it should be decided state by state.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 09:51 AM
You can't write a bill that does not call it a tax then the court re-write it so it does. Well, you can but you're not supposed too.

Nothing was "re-written." The bill calls for a penalty to be administered by the IRS. What someone calls it is kind of irrelevant. What matters is what it is.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:51 AM
Some of the people on the far, far left are pissed because this could mean the end of the UHC dream.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:51 AM
SO here is the argument Obama and the Dems have now.....

Obama\Dems: "This is nto a tax, it is a penalty, we are not imposing a tax"

SCOTUS: "This is a tax"

Obama\Dems: "We told you it wasn't a tax but really it is but who cares, we won!!"

stonedstooge
06-28-2012, 09:51 AM
Not in this case because the Ds made a point that it wasn't a tax with the knowledge that passing a new tax would be unpopular and they knew it would cost them elections. This is why the SC shouldn't be re-writing the law for Congress as it wasn't even their intent it be a tax.

Roberts concedes the battle to win the war. It will be interesting to see how it works out

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:52 AM
Yeah, that was another clue for me as well. I also saw an article where he may not want the SC to be seen as partisan for the right. So he plays politics instead of going by rule of law, we know now. Just aweful. Wonder if Obama's threats to claim the court as a tool of the Republicans had anything to do with it? I'd love to see the behind the scenes dialogue.

I want to be liked !PBJ I want to be liked !PBJ I want to be liked ! PBJ

Roberts: What do you expect, I am a well disguised RINO anyway. If I had a spine for the Constitution then I wouldn't be liked:shrug:

La literatura
06-28-2012, 09:52 AM
Not in this case because the Ds made a point that it wasn't a tax with the knowledge that passing a new tax would be unpopular and they knew it would cost them elections. This is why the SC shouldn't be re-writing the law for Congress as it wasn't even their intent it be a tax.

Political rhetoric is typically not controlling authority for judges, when the words and logic are right there in front of them on the page.

Congress can often intend one thing, but have those actions struck down as unconstitutional for unintentional consequences.

You are making up rules for the court that don't exist and would be harmful if they did exist.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 09:53 AM
Not in this case because the Ds made a point that it wasn't a tax with the knowledge that passing a new tax would be unpopular and they knew it would cost them elections. This is why the SC shouldn't be re-writing the law for Congress as it wasn't even their intent it be a tax.

You're simply wrong. A thing is what it is. And when you say "re-written" I assume you know that nothing was or is going to be actually re-written.

Chiefshrink
06-28-2012, 09:54 AM
Roberts concedes the battle to win the war. It will be interesting to see how it works out

Lord, let's hope ! But I doubt it. "We The People" are up for any battle and especially the war against our country but do our leaders in the GOP up for it? So far the majority are "pussies" in my eyes:rolleyes:

La literatura
06-28-2012, 09:55 AM
SO here is the argument Obama and the Dems have now.....

Obama\Dems: "This is nto a tax, it is a penalty, we are not imposing a tax"

SCOTUS: "This is a tax"

Obama\Dems: "We told you it wasn't a tax but really it is but who cares, we won!!"

Something like that. I think that Roberts' gives the Republicans a very good line now. The ball is in Obama's court to defend it as a tax for the next several months.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 09:55 AM
You're simply wrong. A thing is what it is. And when you say "re-written" I assume you know that nothing was or is going to be actually re-written.

No I am NOT wrong. That's your opinion—not a fact, orange.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 09:56 AM
Unless, you look at where he said it should be decided state by state.

Yes, that is his "out." But as a principle, is still rings pretty hollow and he is going to look ridiculous always having to argue that.

petegz28
06-28-2012, 09:57 AM
Something tells me this will be the new "abortion" argument for decades to come.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:59 AM
Something tells me this will be the new "abortion" argument for decades to come.

not really. People aren't morally opposed to health insurance or receiving health care, and this was the conservative alternative to Clintoncare.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 09:59 AM
No I am NOT wrong. That's your opinion—not a fact, orange.

So, someone on the Supreme Court is going to pull out a red pen and and change the wording of the law and then that version of the law will go into the books? Really, why would you even say something so ridiculous?

alnorth
06-28-2012, 09:59 AM
more from scotusblog

Essentially, a majority of the Court has accepted the Administration's backup argument that, as Roberts put it, "the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition -- not owning health insurance -- that triggers a tax -- the required payment to IRS." Actually, this was the Administration's second backup argument: first argument was Commerce Clause, second was Necessary and Proper Clause, and third was as a tax. The third argument won.

The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 10:00 AM
Roberts also had a barb at people who tried to tell the court that Obamacare sucks.

"it is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices"

petegz28
06-28-2012, 10:02 AM
<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.11NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEzNDA4OTU3MTY2MDAmcHQ9MTM*MDg5NTcxOTg3MCZwPSZkPSZnPTImbz1iYTAwODU*ZjAzODE*MWFhYTU5NGM*NjQ4/NTdiMmY4YSZvZj*w.gif" /><object name="kaltura_player_1340895452" id="kaltura_player_1340895452" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all" allowFullScreen="true" height="221" width="392" data="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_qv0pq25m/uiconf_id/5590821"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><param name="movie" value="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_qv0pq25m/uiconf_id/5590821"/><param name="flashVars" value="autoPlay=false&screensLayer.startScreenOverId=startScreen&screensLayer.startScreenId=startScreen"/><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com">video platform</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_management">video management</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/solutions/video_solution">video solutions</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_publishing">video player</a></object>

FD
06-28-2012, 10:04 AM
SO here is the argument Obama and the Dems have now.....

Obama\Dems: "This is nto a tax, it is a penalty, we are not imposing a tax"

SCOTUS: "This is a tax"

Obama\Dems: "We told you it wasn't a tax but really it is but who cares, we won!!"

As it turns out, the tax argument was made by the administration's lawyers, it was their third argument (after commerce clause and nec and proper), but they made it.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:04 AM
Now that's it's being called a tax—it should affect the election since Obama and the Democrats have now passed a humongous tax that has the state's already on the hook for billions, that are unsustainable. This is true even if it was thrown out due to partial implementation.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 10:05 AM
As it turns out, the tax argument was made by the administration's lawyers, it was their third argument (after commerce clause and nec and proper), but they made it.

They didn't make that argument in court. Statements outside of court, made for the sake of election-year politics (please don't vote against me, I didnt raise taxes) are irrelevant.

CoMoChief
06-28-2012, 10:06 AM
LOL the govt is so f'ng out of control.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 10:06 AM
What reaction? Dude I'm scared and pissed. I can barely pay my bills and now this crap?

Although there is a penalty, there apparently is no real penalty for not paying the penalty.

Inspector
06-28-2012, 10:06 AM
Just to be clear...

If Romney gets elected, we still have a chance to do away with this?

If so, folks we really, really need to get everyone out to vote this fall. This election just got even more vital.

Wow....

KC_Lee
06-28-2012, 10:06 AM
“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” - Justice John Roberts.

So if Congress wants you to do something, all they have to do is call the penalty for not doing it a tax and it's constitutional? Anyone else have a problem with this or see the possibility for the abuse of power?

FD
06-28-2012, 10:07 AM
They didn't make that argument in court. Statements outside of court, made for the sake of election-year politics (please don't vote against me, I didnt raise taxes) are irrelevant.

No, the Solicitor General made the tax argument (according to scotusblog.)

alnorth
06-28-2012, 10:08 AM
Seconds after the ruling, I bet

Don Verrilli: "Oh, thank God"

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 10:08 AM
They didn't make that argument in court. Statements outside of court, made for the sake of election-year politics (please don't vote against me, I didnt raise taxes) are irrelevant.

You sure? Did you read the briefs? Oral arguments are controlled by the justices. The briefs are where the parties actually make their cases.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 10:08 AM
No, the Solicitor General made the tax argument (according to scotusblog.)

Yeah. He argued that it was a tax. The SG and their briefs is the only one who matters. Thats what I said.

So.... whats your point?

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:09 AM
<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.11NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEzNDA4OTU3MTY2MDAmcHQ9MTM*MDg5NTcxOTg3MCZwPSZkPSZnPTImbz1iYTAwODU*ZjAzODE*MWFhYTU5NGM*NjQ4/NTdiMmY4YSZvZj*w.gif" /><object name="kaltura_player_1340895452" id="kaltura_player_1340895452" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all" allowFullScreen="true" height="221" width="392" data="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_qv0pq25m/uiconf_id/5590821"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><param name="movie" value="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_qv0pq25m/uiconf_id/5590821"/><param name="flashVars" value="autoPlay=false&screensLayer.startScreenOverId=startScreen&screensLayer.startScreenId=startScreen"/><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com">video platform</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_management">video management</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/solutions/video_solution">video solutions</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_publishing">video player</a></object>


This is where you DON'T call something a tax that isn't a tax but a price increase. My premium went up $700 after the passage of Obamacare. Obama is clueless and ignorant about economics. It's all these govt mandates that allegedly make such things more affordable, driving up costs. The same is true for education.

But a price increase by a private entity is not a tax by a long shot because it's not the govt doing it. This is the Newspeak of progressives and socialists.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 10:10 AM
You sure? Did you read the briefs? Oral arguments are controlled by the justices. The briefs are where the parties actually make their cases.

Yes, I am sure.

Again, from scotusblog:

Essentially, a majority of the Court has accepted the Administration's backup argument that, as Roberts put it, "the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition -- not owning health insurance -- that triggers a tax -- the required payment to IRS." Actually, this was the Administration's second backup argument: first argument was Commerce Clause, second was Necessary and Proper Clause, and third was as a tax. The third argument won.

The justices didn't just make that up out of thin air.

FD
06-28-2012, 10:11 AM
Yeah. He argued that it was a tax. The SG and their briefs is the only one who matters. Thats what I said.

So.... whats your point?

I think we're saying the same thing, re-read my post you first responded to.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 10:12 AM
“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” - Justice John Roberts.

So if Congress wants you to do something, all they have to do is call the penalty for not doing it a tax and it's constitutional? Anyone else have a problem with this or see the possibility for the abuse of power?

There is definitely the possibility for the abuse of power, and that is why there are two houses of congress and a president and elections.

What people don't realize is that the Cons. gives WIDE latitude for imposing taxes. It says Congress can levy taxes FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE. That is a huge area of discretion and the courts have generally given Congress freedom to decide what is the general welfare.

La literatura
06-28-2012, 10:12 AM
“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” - Justice John Roberts.

So if Congress wants you to do something, all they have to do is call the penalty for not doing it a tax and it's constitutional? Anyone else have a problem with this or see the possibility for the abuse of power?

Not quite. As Roberts' opinion points out, Congress has to jump through several hoops in order for a tax to be valid, including the Direct Tax Clause of Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 4.

Setsuna
06-28-2012, 10:12 AM
Although there is a penalty, there apparently is no real penalty for not paying the penalty.

Shut up bitch. I don't believe anything you say. You spin every fucking thing on the Earth to make your party look like saints. It's fucking pathetic. I don't think I've ever seen you admit your Democratic party did ANYTHING wrong. You can't say anything objectively and I'm tired of it. Don't ever address me again and I'll extend the same courtesy to you.

Dayze
06-28-2012, 10:13 AM
how does this effect the average joe who already has health care? My wife and I are under her insurance; I'm a consultant w/out benefits etc.

would this impact me in a negative way?

patteeu
06-28-2012, 10:14 AM
From scotusblog:



I am flabbergasted. The chief justice, and only the chief justice, provided the 5th vote. NO ONE saw this coming.

Lawerence Tribe did.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 10:14 AM
Yes, I am sure.

Again, from scotusblog:



The justices didn't just make that up out of thin air.

I thought you said the the govt DIDN'T argue tax in court.

Bewbies
06-28-2012, 10:14 AM
how does this effect the average joe who already has health care? My wife and I are under her insurance; I'm a consultant w/out benefits etc.

would this impact me in a negative way?

If you want work yes, if you're cool in a shit economy you're good.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:15 AM
“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” - Justice John Roberts.

So if Congress wants you to do something, all they have to do is call the penalty for not doing it a tax and it's constitutional? Anyone else have a problem with this or see the possibility for the abuse of power?

This line of argument, goes back to Hamilton and the idea that the Federal Congress has broad power to tax. Madison countered Hamilton on this saying that the tax and spend clause was subject to the enumerated powers that is also in the Constitution. If such power can mean whatever one wants, then there's essentially no need for any enumerated powers in the Constitution is pretty obvious except to the most statist of folks. Still, you'd have to overturn a lot of precedent, particularly FDR's revolution in the courts ( particularly the Butler case) to get back to original construction for this. That ship sailed a long time ago. We live in Hamilton's America now...actually we've gone beyond that even.

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-28-2012, 10:15 AM
Great day to be an American and a Dem!

mlyonsd
06-28-2012, 10:15 AM
how does this effect the average joe who already has health care? My wife and I are under her insurance; I'm a consultant w/out benefits etc.

would this impact me in a negative way?Your insurance company is going to keep increasing your premiums.

La literatura
06-28-2012, 10:15 AM
how does this effect the average joe who already has health care? My wife and I are under her insurance; I'm a consultant w/out benefits etc.

would this impact me in a negative way?

You have to show the IRS that you are covered by her insurance next year. If you are, the individual mandate does not apply to you.

Bewbies
06-28-2012, 10:16 AM
LOL the govt is so f'ng out of control.

This is pretty much how exactly how I feel. Trying to figure out if that's a LMAO or a :doh!:

petegz28
06-28-2012, 10:16 AM
how does this effect the average joe who already has health care? My wife and I are under her insurance; I'm a consultant w/out benefits etc.

would this impact me in a negative way?

Depends on the size and attitude of your company. I know for a fact some are looking at this as an opportunity to get rid of providing insurance and opt to pay the penalty. Some are going to give an employee a fixed amount of money each year to go get their own insurance. Some are just going to dump it out right, pay the penalty and not give you a dime in which case you are in the hole.

Setsuna
06-28-2012, 10:16 AM
Great day to be an American and a Dem!

I knew you were a completely ignorant idiot.

Bewbies
06-28-2012, 10:16 AM
Great day to be an American and a Dem!

LMAO

This is a guy that has no idea what just happened.

Inspector
06-28-2012, 10:17 AM
Great day to be an American and a Dem!

This confuses me. I would think it's just the opposite.

Well for the American part. This seems more like a scary day for us.

The_Grand_Illusion
06-28-2012, 10:18 AM
Shut up bitch. I don't believe anything you say. You spin every ****ing thing on the Earth to make your party look like saints. It's ****ing pathetic. I don't think I've ever seen you admit your Democratic party did ANYTHING wrong. You can't say anything objectively and I'm tired of it. Don't ever address me again and I'll extend the same courtesy to you.

:clap:

He's such a useful idiot and doesn't care he helped sell his fellow American's freedoms down the road. :mad:

These libs are nothing but control freaks, that use government as their means of control, much like other deceiving movements of the past like communism, fascism, etc. If every generation does not learn to preserve freedom, we will lose it. We have a helluva a fight on our hands.

TGI

The Rick
06-28-2012, 10:20 AM
“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” - Justice John Roberts.

So if Congress wants you to do something, all they have to do is call the penalty for not doing it a tax and it's constitutional? Anyone else have a problem with this or see the possibility for the abuse of power?
The point is that it's not the court's job to protect us from taxation. It's our job, we the people, to elect representatives who won't impose these kinds of tax burdens upon us.

KC_Lee
06-28-2012, 10:20 AM
Not quite. As Roberts' opinion points out, Congress has to jump through several hoops in order for a tax to be valid, including the Direct Tax Clause of Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 4.

Understood, but Congress has the blueprint / template under the Health Care law. And having a template make things easier to replicate.

La literatura
06-28-2012, 10:21 AM
Your insurance company is going to keep increasing your premiums.

Premiums are always increasing, whether this was going to be struck down or not. Perhaps premiums will increase faster than inflation, but that presupposes that the individual mandate's "catch" does not balance on the law's stemming of denying for preexisting conditions.

Mr. Plow
06-28-2012, 10:21 AM
This confuses me. I would think it's just the opposite.

Well for the American part. This seems more like a scary day for us.

I saw that exact post from a chick on my FB..... "Great day to be an American" and I had the exact same thought as you.... "Wait, shouldn't it be the opposite?"

Inspector
06-28-2012, 10:21 AM
The point is that it's not the court's job to protect us from taxation. It's our job, we the people, to elect representatives who won't impose these kinds of tax burdens upon us.

Yep! Gotta agree with this!

patteeu
06-28-2012, 10:23 AM
Romney is a pussy and won't repeal this tax because he will want to tweak it for political purposes although he is out there now saying he will repeal it:rolleyes:. It will be up to "We The People" to twist Romney's arm to repeal this tax

You think he would veto a repeal bill? Not likely. The only question here is whether Congressional Republicans can (and will want to) get a repeal bill to his desk. It's unlikely that they can defeat a filibuster in the Senate, but since the mandate is a tax they may be able to use the reconciliation process to avoid the filibuster.

I think it's more likely that Republicans will try to modify the law instead of repeal it, despite what they say now. They won't want to face the voters after taking away the goodies that democrats sprinkled into the bill, IMO. They may try to characterize it as a repeal and replace situation though.

Bewbies
06-28-2012, 10:23 AM
The point is that it's not the court's job to protect us from taxation. It's our job, we the people, to elect representatives who won't impose these kinds of tax burdens upon us.

Exactly. We elected a bunch of fucking monsters a few years ago and we will be paying for that mistake for a long, long time.

But that mistake will be fixed.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 10:23 AM
Shut up bitch. I don't believe anything you say. You spin every ****ing thing on the Earth to make your party look like saints. It's ****ing pathetic. I don't think I've ever seen you admit your Democratic party did ANYTHING wrong. You can't say anything objectively and I'm tired of it. Don't ever address me again and I'll extend the same courtesy to you.

Just trying to help you out since you are so "scared" you little sissy. I didn't think there was anything provacative about my post, but maybe you are on your period. Now, go fuk yourself, you worthless dumbass sack of shit. And I'll address you when and how I please you hysterical piece of garbage.

Inspector
06-28-2012, 10:24 AM
I saw that exact post from a chick on my FB..... "Great day to be an American" and I had the exact same thought as you.... "Wait, shouldn't it be the opposite?"

Yeah, it sort of freaks me out.

I guess if we want to look at the bright side (if there is one) this will probably get a lot more people involved with the voting process and paying a lot more attention to the politics of our country.

La literatura
06-28-2012, 10:24 AM
I think there's a lot here to like if you are a small-govt proponent. It's not that the Court skirts away the Commerce Clause issue. No, Roberts has quite a bit to say about it, and he says that govt cannot compel economic activity. No brocoli mandate. Congress' power to step in can only take place when there already exists that commerce.

stonedstooge
06-28-2012, 10:24 AM
Roberts also had a barb at people who tried to tell the court that Obamacare sucks.

Boom goes the dynamite. Settle it at the polls

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:25 AM
how does this effect the average joe who already has health care? My wife and I are under her insurance; I'm a consultant w/out benefits etc.

would this impact me in a negative way?

It means everything will cost you more. Your wife's premiums will continue to go up while more payments from her paycheck will be needed to cover them. The cost of govt will rise. Romney will just call these costs fees instead of taxes so he can say he didn't raise taxes.

Meanwhile, economic growth won't be a strong as we adopt another aspect of European social democracy, just American-style. Our economic growth outpaced them generally, particularly when we had less of this stuff.

Now, ya'll know why I felt Ron Paul was vital to restoring America. The Republicans will eventually toe the line by accepting this but your costs on govt and healthcare will go up. This is why upper education also costs so much....all in the name of making it more affordable.

Msmith
06-28-2012, 10:25 AM
I am late coming to this. Please bear with my ignorance.

An employer has to offer health insurance to employees if he employs 50 or more people. Is this part time or full time? What if the employee works three part time jobs, how does it work on being insured? Or seasonal jobs?

Mr. Plow
06-28-2012, 10:26 AM
Yeah, it sort of freaks me out.

I guess if we want to look at the bright side (if there is one) this will probably get a lot more people involved with the voting process and paying a lot more attention to the politics of our country.


I'll be the first to admit, I don't follow politics like I should. I've been getting more & more into it, but never enough to "argue" with someone about it.

mlyonsd
06-28-2012, 10:26 AM
Premiums are always increasing, whether this was going to be struck down or not. Perhaps premiums will increase faster than inflation, but that presupposes that the individual mandate's "catch" does not balance on the law's stemming of denying for preexisting conditions.Right, I should rephrase.

Your insurance premiums will go up exponentially compared to what they normally would.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:27 AM
Boom goes the dynamite. Settle it at the polls

They only way it will get settled at the polls is to elect a true conservative or a right-libertarian. Fat chance of that happening. You may just see a tweak on this by Romney.

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 10:27 AM
Shut up bitch. I don't believe anything you say. You spin every ****ing thing on the Earth to make your party look like saints. It's ****ing pathetic. I don't think I've ever seen you admit your Democratic party did ANYTHING wrong. You can't say anything objectively and I'm tired of it. Don't ever address me again and I'll extend the same courtesy to you.

Drama

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:29 AM
Right, I should rephrase.

Your insurance premiums will go up exponentially compared to what they normally would.

Yes this is true. What people don't realize though is that most increases have mainly occurred due to the already existing 2000 or so mandates by govt. Add in govt stimulus aka printing of money for inflation. Govt intervention in healthcare markets is the major factor in healthcare costs rising faster than they should. Where govt isn't as involved, the costs of medical procedures have fallen. This is more the tendency of a free-market system than an overly interventionist govt claiming to make healthcare affordable. ( cough cough) This is economic fact.

Bewbies
06-28-2012, 10:29 AM
They only way it will get settled at the polls is to elect a true conservative or a right-libertarian. Fat chance of that happening. You may just see a tweak on this by Romney.

Congress is more important. Get more anti-establishment conservative types in the house, take the senate, let them guide Romney's ass in the right direction.

Inspector
06-28-2012, 10:29 AM
I'll be the first to admit, I don't follow politics like I should. I've been getting more & more into it, but never enough to "argue" with someone about it.

I hear ya buddy. I'm in the same boat. Time to get more involved.

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-28-2012, 10:32 AM
I knew you were a completely ignorant idiot.
Sambo

El Jefe
06-28-2012, 10:33 AM
Congress is more important. Get more anti-establishment conservative types in the house, take the senate, let them guide Romney's ass in the right direction.

Yes we have got to get more in the house and take the senate. QFT

El Jefe
06-28-2012, 10:35 AM
I saw that exact post from a chick on my FB..... "Great day to be an American" and I had the exact same thought as you.... "Wait, shouldn't it be the opposite?"

Truth!

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-28-2012, 10:37 AM
LMAO

This is a guy that has no idea what just happened.

I Do. I just happen to disagree with you

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-28-2012, 10:41 AM
Great day to be an American. As one of the millions who is willing to pay for millions of people to have access to health care I'm glad the supreme court did the right thing. If you disagree with me that's fine, bit why call names or be disrespectful?

Setsuna
06-28-2012, 10:43 AM
I Do. I just happen to disagree with you

You really don't. When you do realize what happened, don't complain, don't even make a facial expression of disapproval. Just drop your pants, bend over, and say, "Please sir, can I have some more?"

Inspector
06-28-2012, 10:43 AM
Great day to be an American. As one of the millions who is willing to pay for millions of people to have access to health care I'm glad the supreme court did the right thing. If you disagree with me that's fine, bit why call names or be disrespectful?

This is a great place to learn things. I never knew that there were millions of Americans that had zero access to health care.

Thanks man!

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:44 AM
...as another dangerous precedent that will expand govt's power to coerce.
And Roberts has a libertarian wife even. If it's true most don't want this bill—then why not start the process for a new amendment to forbid such a usurption of power that Robert's condones. This could be done now.

Government Employees in Black Robes Side With Government

Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on June 28, 2012 09:01 AM

SCOTUS voted 5-4 to uphold Obamacare and have concluded that the Constitution actually empowers the government to force people to buy things. In this case, it's health insurance, but now that the precedent is set, the feds can now require you to buy anything it wants, apparently justified by the Constitution's granted power to tax.

This nicely illustrates the theory that SCOTUS judges will almost always come down on the side of more government power unless doing so will dangerously undermine their own power. They're politicians in robes. The number one concern of the court is its own independence, as illustrated by the craven switch in time that saved nine. It will only vote for more freedom when backed into a corner by the text of the constitution itself, as in the case of Chicago v. McDonald. But now, calculating that there's enough political support behind Obamacare to get away with it, SCOTUS has handed the executive branch a new massive amount of power.

It's hilariously ironic that a Catholic Bush appointee (Roberts) switched sides to hand a great victory to Obama. How often are we told that we should vote Republican because the GOP president will appoint "good" judges? Often. The upside is that Catholics, who are only now finally starting to figure out that the government is not our friend, may finally have to grow a spine and quit relying on meek petitions to government lawyers (judges) for a defense of religious freedom.

Now that one of Bush's appointees saved Obamacare for Obama, every conservative who voted for Bush to get "strict constructionists" on the bench should have the word "sucker" tattooed on his or her face.

So, when it comes time to get out the vote, will we hear from the GOP about how we need a Republican in office to give us good, Christian, freedom-loving judges in office? Oh yeah, I'm sure Romney appointees will be so much more reliable than Bush's.

Update: I see that Laurence and I were thinking the same thing.

patteeu
06-28-2012, 10:44 AM
how does this effect the average joe who already has health care? My wife and I are under her insurance; I'm a consultant w/out benefits etc.

would this impact me in a negative way?

The good news is that you won't lose your healthcare benefits. The bad news is that your wife's might not be so stable.

mlyonsd
06-28-2012, 10:45 AM
One thing we can all agree on....this time it really is Bush's fault.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:46 AM
I forgot Roberts was a Catholic. They tend to be economically liberal.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:47 AM
Come on Ron run Third Party with Gary Johnson as your VP.
Someone, I may start this by writing or calling my guy, start a Constitutional Amendment process and send it to the states.

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-28-2012, 10:49 AM
I am late coming to this. Please bear with my ignorance.

An employer has to offer health insurance to employees if he employs 50 or more people. Is this part time or full time? What if the employee works three part time jobs, how does it work on being insured? Or seasonal jobs?

You really don't. When you do realize what happened, don't complain, don't even make a facial expression of disapproval. Just drop your pants, bend over, and say, "Please sir, can I have some more?"

Sambo...self hatred is bitch, you keep shucken and jiven

The_Grand_Illusion
06-28-2012, 10:50 AM
Great day to be an American. As one of the millions who is willing to pay for millions of people to have access to health care I'm glad the supreme court did the right thing. If you disagree with me that's fine, bit why call names or be disrespectful?


:shake:

You really don't have a clue of the value of freedom and how bigger and bigger government takes that away. If you cannot see this is a huge government power grab and is so wrong when it comes to our freedoms, it's a damn shame this culture has become so corrupt.

:shake:

patteeu
06-28-2012, 10:50 AM
Premiums are always increasing, whether this was going to be struck down or not. Perhaps premiums will increase faster than inflation, but that presupposes that the individual mandate's "catch" does not balance on the law's stemming of denying for preexisting conditions.

To the extent that the mandate has any impact on individual premium inflation it will be illusory or at best temporary. The drivers for rapidly growing costs in healthcare are not the degree to which healthy people join the risk pool.

La literatura
06-28-2012, 10:51 AM
I forgot Roberts was a Catholic. They tend to be economically liberal.

This is silly. Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy are Catholics, too. Roberts' opinion isn't based on Catholic theology. It's based on his reading of the taxing power of the federal government granted to it by the Constitution of the United States.

ThaVirus
06-28-2012, 10:52 AM
Based on the amount of conservative Republicans that appear to inhabit this forum, I can already guess the kind of answer I'm going to get here.. but hows the long-term sustainability looking here?

stonedstooge
06-28-2012, 10:53 AM
Romney says he will repeal Obamacare his first day of office

Bewbies
06-28-2012, 10:54 AM
Based on the amount of conservative Republicans that appear to inhabit this forum, I can already guess the kind of answer I'm going to get here.. but hows the long-term sustainability looking here?

We're good. This is totally sustainable, especially when we only have $15,000,000,000,000.00+ in debt already.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 10:54 AM
One thing we can all agree on....this time it really is Bush's fault.

His Supreme Court picks (the ones that got through, not Harriet Miers) were about the only thing conservatives could honestly praise W for.

Inspector
06-28-2012, 10:54 AM
Based on the amount of conservative Republicans that appear to inhabit this forum, I can already guess the kind of answer I'm going to get here.. but hows the long-term sustainability looking here?

Hopefully if we all work together, we can get this corrected. Keep your fingers crossed man! We're all in this mess together.

mikey23545
06-28-2012, 10:55 AM
Come on Ron run Third Party with Gary Johnson as your VP.
Someone, I may start this by writing or calling my guy, start a Constitutional Amendment process and send it to the states.

I've probably never been so close to agreeing with you before.

But you would simply be handing the election to Obama. And no matter what you think, Romney with all his flaws and warts will still be better than another four years of Hussein.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:55 AM
June 28, 2012
The Court Says A Penalty Is Not A Tax and Is A Tax
:spock::shake::doh!:

Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on June 28, 2012 09:50 AM
Michael Eversden pointed this out to me, so I read that portion of the decision, and it's true: the Supreme Court says that the fine is not a tax for one purpose (getting the case to be considered despite the Anti-Injunction Act) and is a tax for another purpose (the Constitution). The relevant portion of a paragraph reads:

"The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a 'penalty,' not a 'tax.' That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit."

Unbelievable!

dirk digler
06-28-2012, 10:55 AM
I am traveling on vacation but I thought I would jump in real quick and give a big LMAO

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:55 AM
Romney says he will appeal Obamacare his first day of office

I can hear him right now on TV making this claim.

Inspector
06-28-2012, 10:56 AM
Romney says he will appeal Obamacare his first day of office

I think this promise will get him a lot of votes. Hope he means it.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:56 AM
We're good. This is totally sustainable, especially when we only have $15,000,000,000,000.00+ in debt already.

We may be better off collapsing like the Soviet Union—and starting all over again.

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-28-2012, 10:56 AM
Romney says he will repeal Obamacare his first day of office

Funny..its modeled after his plan

Bewbies
06-28-2012, 10:57 AM
Great day to be an American. As one of the millions who is willing to pay for millions of people to have access to health care I'm glad the supreme court did the right thing. If you disagree with me that's fine, bit why call names or be disrespectful?

Surprisingly, evil conservatives aren't against people having health care. But they are in favor of people having liberty, and this is a huge hit against it.

When the government controls your healthcare they can control nearly everything about your life. Welcome to the USSA.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 10:57 AM
Romney says he will repeal Obamacare his first day of office

He says a lot of funny things.

Bewbies
06-28-2012, 10:57 AM
Funny..its modeled after his plan

I don't like it, but there's a huge difference between a state plan and a national plan.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:58 AM
I am traveling on vacation but I thought I would jump in real quick and give a big LMAO
Weren't you one of the Democrats claiming the mandate itself would hold up?
If so, you were wrong on that part. The right was right on that ALL ALONG!
Just no one foresaw Roberts going with calling it a tax instead. Or Kennedy agreeing with throwing it all out.

Setsuna
06-28-2012, 10:59 AM
I honestly thought people couldn't get more ignorant. I can't believe I have Facebook friends that are celebrating this shit. I need to clean house.

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 11:00 AM
One thing we can all agree on....this time it really is Bush's fault.

Ok I laughed.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 11:00 AM
I've probably never been so close to agreeing with you before.

But you would simply be handing the election to Obama. And no matter what you think, Romney with all his flaws and warts will still be better than another four years of Hussein.

Well, if the Congress remained in R control with more, especially limited govt ones winning ( more are running) ....there'd still be a chance to add an amendment.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 11:00 AM
I think this promise will get him a lot of votes. Hope he means it.

I'm not sure if it can be called a promise since he has no viable mechanism with which to repeal it by himself.

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-28-2012, 11:01 AM
Surprisingly, evil conservatives aren't against people having health care. But they are in favor of people having liberty, and this is a huge hit against it.

When the government controls your healthcare they can control nearly everything about your life. Welcome to the USSA.

In real life ( not CP life). I dont think people who have diffrenet political views than I DO are evil. In the.CP world if you don't share the.majorities opinion you're an evil anti American idiot

stonedstooge
06-28-2012, 11:02 AM
How many Democrats jump ship on the House vote on Obama Care?

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 11:02 AM
Now, will the Democrats continue to BLAME BUSH or congratulate him finally!?
Will, they at least concede Bush was really a progressive and not this arch-conservative?

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 11:02 AM
Surprisingly, evil conservatives aren't against people having health care. But they are in favor of people having liberty, and this is a huge hit against it.

When the government controls your healthcare they can control nearly everything about your life. Welcome to the USSA.

See, this is pure ignorance. Or a lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say ignorance. This is no way controls healthcare. If it controls anything, it is insurance. And it does so by giving a private industry a lot more business.

Setsuna
06-28-2012, 11:03 AM
In real life ( not CP life). I dont think people who have diffrenet political views than I DO are evil. In the.CP world if you don't share the.majorities opinion you're an evil anti American idiot

Wow. You are making up shit now. Many people, as have I, have called you an idiot. Show me a post where someone said you were anti American and evil. I'll wait...

La literatura
06-28-2012, 11:05 AM
June 28, 2012
The Court Says A Penalty Is Not A Tax and Is A Tax
:spock::shake::doh!:

Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on June 28, 2012 09:50 AM
Michael Eversden pointed this out to me, so I read that portion of the decision, and it's true: the Supreme Court says that the fine is not a tax for one purpose (getting the case to be considered despite the Anti-Injunction Act) and is a tax for another purpose (the Constitution). The relevant portion of a paragraph reads:

"The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a 'penalty,' not a 'tax.' That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit."

Unbelievable!

It's not necessarily unreasonable to treat a statute's language as meaning one thing, whereas the Constitution has other meanings for similar language. After all, the Constitution is a skeleton of the government. It can't possibly contain every federal action. But if a federal statute limits itself to a particular reading, that is Congress imposing upon itself in a particular way; that's totally different than the Constitution imposing upon Congress a particular way of reading.

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-28-2012, 11:06 AM
[QUOTE=Setsuna;8707081]Wow. You are making up shit now. Many people, as have I, have called you an idiot. Show me a post where someone said you were anti American and evil. I'll wait...[/QUOTE

You hate being Black, you hate anything that has to do with black culture. I.have nothing to discuss with a person such as yourself. I.have no respect for you or what you have to say

donkhater
06-28-2012, 11:06 AM
I honestly thought people couldn't get more ignorant. I can't believe I have Facebook friends that are celebrating this shit. I need to clean house.

The country is about to re-elect Obama. And you wonder about the intelligence of the nation?

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 11:07 AM
I honestly thought people couldn't get more ignorant. I can't believe I have Facebook friends that are celebrating this shit. I need to clean house.

I can't believe that either. Do you blow up at them like a hysteric nut also?

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2012, 11:08 AM
Bring the violence, it's significant.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 11:08 AM
See, this is pure ignorance. Or a lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say ignorance. This is no way controls healthcare. If it controls anything, it is insurance.

Once again you call what is your opinion a fact. It's not. There's more evidence to support his claim than your claim of ignorance.

And it does so by giving a private industry a lot more business.

...which will lead to even more substantion rising costs. Supply and demand. The market will always have the last say....and this is fact.

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 11:09 AM
Bring the violence, it's significant.

He types on his keyboard on a message board.

patteeu
06-28-2012, 11:10 AM
I think this ruling makes sense in the context of vast, existing mandates resting on top of the power of the government to tax (e.g. Social Security). Unless we're really ready to roll our laws back to pre-New Deal levels (an attractive proposition to me, but presumably a very unpopular one), this doesn't seem like much of a departure. I hope Justice Roberts' opinion indicates a narrower view of the Commerce Clause power in the future. One big reason why this is important is that Congress will have a harder time expanding government using taxation than by usin a commerce clause argument.

One thing is now clear. The SCOTUS has declared that the emperor is wearing no clothes in terms of Obama's promise not to raise any kind of taxes on the middle class and his newspeak insistence that this was not a tax.

Inspector
06-28-2012, 11:12 AM
[QUOTE=Setsuna;8707081]Wow. You are making up shit now. Many people, as have I, have called you an idiot. Show me a post where someone said you were anti American and evil. I'll wait...[/QUOTE

You hate being Black, you hate anything that has to do with black culture. I.have nothing to discuss with a person such as yourself. I.have no respect for you or what you have to say

Why do you bring the shade of skin color into the discussion? I can't think of any relevance. Everyone one of us has color to our skin and none of the shades are identical. What difference does that make?

dirk digler
06-28-2012, 11:13 AM
Weren't you one of the Democrats claiming the mandate itself would hold up?
If so, you were wrong on that part. The right was right on that ALL ALONG!
Just no one foresaw Roberts going with calling it a tax instead. Or Kennedy agreeing with throwing it all out.

Am I wrong in that the whole Obamacare passed 5-4?

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-28-2012, 11:14 AM
The country is about to re-elect Obama. And you wonder about the intelligence of the nation?

Funny....I said the same thing in 2004 about Bush and the folks who voted for him. It's the same political bullshit between both parties that has slowly destroyed our politica system, making it the laughing stock it is today.

Setsuna
06-28-2012, 11:14 AM
The country is about to re-elect Obama. And you wonder about the intelligence of the nation?
......please don't even say that as a possibility. I'll kill myself.

[QUOTE=Setsuna;8707081]Wow. You are making up shit now. Many people, as have I, have called you an idiot. Show me a post where someone said you were anti American and evil. I'll wait...[/QUOTE

You hate being Black, you hate anything that has to do with black culture. I.have nothing to discuss with a person such as yourself. I.have no respect for you or what you have to say
Haha you just completely deflected that. The fact is you can't produce a post and are just saying shit. You need to stop hiding behind ignorance and see the truth. But you won't until you're on your death bed. I feel sorry for you.

I can't believe that either. Do you blow up at them like a hysteric nut also?
Nicely done. Troll.

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 11:15 AM
......please don't even say that as a possibility. I'll kill myself.



You sure you don't have more problems than Obama being in office?

stonedstooge
06-28-2012, 11:17 AM
REBATES FOR 13 MILLION PEOPLE from the insurance companies/ Obama

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-28-2012, 11:17 AM
You sure you don't have more problems than Obama being in office?

Yes he does...to stat with, he hates his skin color

La literatura
06-28-2012, 11:18 AM
Am I wrong in that the whole Obamacare passed 5-4?

There was a Medicaid expansion in Obamacare that penalized states who did not particpate. 42 USC Sec. 1396(c).

That was declared unconstitutional by a majority of the Court.

The rest, including the individual mandate, was upheld.

fan4ever
06-28-2012, 11:19 AM
Yes he does...to stat with, he hates his skin color

Which half? And leave it to a lib to bring up race. :rolleyes:

patteeu
06-28-2012, 11:19 AM
Am I wrong in that the whole Obamacare passed 5-4?

Yes

Inspector
06-28-2012, 11:21 AM
Yes he does...to stat with, he hates his skin color

Ok. I see.

Obsession isn't just a perfume by Calvin Cline.

You seem to be obsessed with the skin color deal. Seems weird to me but to each his own I guess.

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2012, 11:21 AM
He types on his keyboard on a message board.

Actually I can understand why certain people would want others to pay for their health care. What was the feedback your doctor gave you on your obesity problem the last time you rolled in to see him?

dirk digler
06-28-2012, 11:21 AM
There was a Medicaid expansion of Obamacare that penalized states who did not particpate. 42 USC Sec. 1396(c).

That was declared unconstitutional by a majority of the Court.

The rest, including the individual mandate, was upheld.

Thanks. Lmao too funny.

alnorth
06-28-2012, 11:23 AM
I hope Justice Roberts' opinion indicates a narrower view of the Commerce Clause power in the future. One big reason why this is important is that Congress will have a harder time expanding government using taxation than by usin a commerce clause argument.

In his opinion, Roberts did spell out some limits in the commerce clause, and he said that if this were not permitted as a tax, then it would have failed under the commerce clause.

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 11:24 AM
Actually I can understand why certain people would want others to pay for their health care. What was the feedback your doctor gave you on your obesity problem the last time you rolled in to see him?

What violence are you preparing to enact on big talking message board poster?

alnorth
06-28-2012, 11:24 AM
There was a Medicaid expansion in Obamacare that penalized states who did not particpate. 42 USC Sec. 1396(c).

That was declared unconstitutional by a majority of the Court.

The rest, including the individual mandate, was upheld.

Yeah, the court said that if congress wants to put strings on new money, they can, but given how old and huge medicaid is, congress cant threaten to pull the existing money if new requirements are not met.

Setsuna
06-28-2012, 11:25 AM
You sure you don't have more problems than Obama being in office?
Hahahaha you suck at sarcasm.

Yes he does...to stat with, he hates his skin color
ROFL You entertain me to no end. You're mad I don't fall into the ignorant masses of fellow black people and share all their views. Someone on CP, the member with the big black guy with the foil gloves on, worded it perfectly. A hive mind. I choose not to be hive minded and have views that make me a "Tom" apparently. All this, "We're in this together" mentality is straight up bullshit and I won't stand for it. That's why he doesn't "respect" me.

Bewbies
06-28-2012, 11:27 AM
Hahahaha you suck at sarcasm.


ROFL You entertain me to no end. You're mad I don't fall into the ignorant masses of fellow black people and share all their views. Someone on CP, the member with the big black guy with the foil gloves on, worded it perfectly. A hive mind. I choose not to be hive minded and have views that make me a "Tom" apparently. All this, "We're in this together" mentality is straight up bullshit and I won't stand for it. That's why he doesn't "respect" me.

Do you get offended by people who tell you how black people are supposed to think?

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2012, 11:28 AM
What violence are you preparing to enact on big talking message board poster?

I was being facetious. I wouldn't expect you to pick up on that with the lack of blood getting to your brain there fat body.

mikey23545
06-28-2012, 11:29 AM
It's not necessarily unreasonable to treat a statute's language as meaning one thing, whereas the Constitution has other meanings for similar language. After all, the Constitution is a skeleton of the government. It can't possibly contain every federal action. But if a federal statute limits itself to a particular reading, that is Congress imposing upon itself in a particular way; that's totally different than the Constitution imposing upon Congress a particular way of reading.

In other words, language only means what any particular words mean when used as language, whether the language has meaning in the context of meaningful words or not. Many times language can only capture the essence of words that mean whatever the author of those words expresses as a meaning that is ineffable or liberal, which can be considered as identical terms for the reasons of dictatorial rhetoric.

donkhater
06-28-2012, 11:30 AM
Democrats are doing a dance on this now, but with a large majority of the country against the individual mandate and Roberts saying it is a tax, the GOP has the perfect set-up saying that the federal government is now requiring its citizens participate in a market. Framed right, this will not go well with a large majority of independants.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 11:32 AM
...and offers a solution for citizens to opt out.

“I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it come to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

“Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.

“Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so.” (Thanks to Jeff Deist)

Setsuna
06-28-2012, 11:33 AM
Do you get offended by people who tell you how black people are supposed to think?

No, not really. I chalk it up to ignorance.

scorpio
06-28-2012, 11:33 AM
RON PAUL

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 11:34 AM
Democrats are doing a dance on this now, but with a large majority of the country against the individual mandate and Roberts saying it is a tax, the GOP has the perfect set-up saying that the federal government is now requiring its citizens participate in a market. Framed right, this will not go well with a large majority of independants.

I agree. I can see an effective campaign line using the words humongous tax increase.

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 11:34 AM
I was being facetious. I wouldn't expect you to pick up on that with the lack of blood getting to your brain there fat body.

Damn, and here I thought you were a man of action instead of a hen in the henhouse *sad trombone*

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 11:35 AM
RON PAUL

...with Gary Johnson as his VP.

donkhater
06-28-2012, 11:36 AM
Many Republicans are upset with the ruling, but those of us who have awaken to the realization that the two parties aren't that different take this as an inevitable result. The GOP just nominated a former governor who enacted a similar law in his own state for crying out loud.

The whole entitlement Ponzi scam will collapse on itself one day. This only speeds that up. I have some hope that the country will come to it's senses, but it's only a slim hope.

What our lawmakers in Washington need isn't a copy of the Constitution, but "Math for Dummies".

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2012, 11:37 AM
The problem right now is nobody has read through the 120 pages it would take to have an informed opinion and it shows. Being I am for a very small government I am inclined to believe I will be against this but I can't give an opinion on the decision.

blaise
06-28-2012, 11:39 AM
In real life ( not CP life). I dont think people who have diffrenet political views than I DO are evil. In the.CP world if you don't share the.majorities opinion you're an evil anti American idiot

And to you, on CP, people that don't share your opinion are racist.