Obama '08?

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

If the Supreme Court rules that any part of the healthcare bill is unconstitutional, then the whole bill is thereby ruled unconstitutional, because the writers of the bill forgot to include a statement equivalent to the following statement:
Should any part of this bill be ruled unconstitutional, the rest of the bill is not thereby ruled unconstitutional.

WRONG as usual ican.

In fact the VA court went out of its way to say the rest of the bill was not voided by its ruling on the mandated coverage.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I presume this could eventually go to the Supreme Court, if they accept the case?

It will be hard for them to avoid it since there are differing rulings by the lower courts. If they didn't take it then the health care bill would be valid in some parts of the country but not in others.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

In fact the VA court went out of its way to say the rest of the bill was not voided by its ruling on the mandated coverage.

as if that matters, ObamaCare does not work financially without mandated coverage. If this part of the law is struck down Congress will have no choice but to void most of the rest of it.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Cy didn't say that it has never happened. Read the dialog again. That's was Ican's crazy assumption.

The relevant part of my dialog with Cyclo:

Quote:

Ican: It's obviously true that when inheritance taxes have taxed inherited businesses, such that those who inherited such businesses could not pay the inheritance tax without selling part or all of the business, the business was reduced by sale of part or all of it.

Cy: You're the one who made the claim, Ican. It is upon you to prove it, not the person who says your claim is untrue.

Cy BY IMPLICATION asks that I prove it. If it happened once or a million times, it happened. If it happened at all, then what I asserted happened did in fact happen. By IMPLICATION, if it happened one or more times, then my assertion is true.

If Cy cannot provide any evidence it NEVER happened, then he has offered zero evidence that it NEVER happened. If he is unable to offer any evidence it NEVER happened, then what reason do I have for ignoring the cases for which I personally know it happened, but cannot provide ABSOLUTE proof to convince Cy it happened.

1 Reply

Chris Van Hollen on Sunday argued that the estate tax should be increased to 45% over the 35% now contemplated in the compromise package negotiated between Obama and the Republicans.

In defending this position he spoke of how the country could not afford to give billions of dollars to a little more than 6,000 families.

That one word tells you all you need to know about liberals and taxes.

If they refrain from taking your money, they are giving it to you...as if they own it all in the first place.

Whatever money that I will have made in my lifetime will be taxed and I will get to keep a portion of it.

If I decide to save some of what I've been allowed to keep and give to my children upon my death, the government will tax it again and decide how much my children get to keep.

Although I will already have satisfied my tax debt to the government, they get to decide whether or not leaving the remainder of my wealth to my kids is fair and proper.

Their argument is that my kids did nothing to earn the money I will leave to them, that it is a windfall, and therefore deserving of being partially seized by the government. After all, the people to whom my wealth is redistributed after my death, will have done so much more than my kids to earn it.

But who am I kidding? The estate tax won't kick in at dollar one. The compromise package calls for $5 million, while the House Dems are seeking a floor of $3.5 million. Surely we can all agree that anyone who is able to save more than $3.5 million net after taxes doesn't deserve to have much of a say with what happens to it when he's dead, and my kids who will have received $3.5 million free and clear, surely don't deserve more than 65% of anything over that amount.

One might think that this creates an incentive for me to spend all of the money I earn while I am alive and not leave any to my kids. This would, at least, keep the money out of the hands of the grubby politicians. But in all likelihood I along with many of my fellow Americans will decide that it is better to leave my kids a portion of my wealth rather than none, and the parasitic politicians will get their cut.

But why am I complaining? It's the government that has made it possible for me to make as much as I do, and they are, after all, letting me keep most of it.
They're also about to give me a huge chunk now that they are on the verge of extending the Bush tax cuts. Of course I'm not going to see that chunk of money. My paycheck won't get any bigger and my bank account won't suddenly swell, but according to Mr. Van Hollen and his colleagues the government will have given me a chunk of money so large that it will raise the deficit.

You can understand this concept. It's like not buying that new car you want. The minute you decide not to buy it, your income has increased.

Right?

By not taking more money from you and me in 2011 than they have been taking over roughly the last ten years, they are increasing the nation's debt.

Right.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Well, because nobody cares what you 'personally know.' If you can't provide evidence, you can't prove that it happens - and especially not to great enough of a level that it merits DOING anything about.

RJB is right - it's not society's fault that people near the end of their lives don't properly plan for the transition of their funds to their heirs. If they can't be bothered to make plans, it is their fault, not society's.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

After all, the people to whom my wealth is redistributed after my death, will have done so much more than my kids to earn it.

It's hard work torturing, raping and murdering innocents from third world countries, Finn. Those CIA boys deserve to be treated fairly. And subsidies for wealthy farmers and huge farm corporations, well, you know how early those folks have to get up to earn their daily bread.

And let's not forget just how much of your hard earned cash goes to help the US armament industry foment violence around the world, nor should we forget just how much the US military gobbles to ensure that Haiti doesn't invade the USA.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I agree it will likely go to the Supreme Court. Hard to tell what might happen there. If the definition of interstate commerce implicit in the HC bill is sustained, then it will be very difficult to exclude anything from the reach of the Federal government in our economic and even social lives. I think there is a good chance the lower court's decision might be sustained, perhaps with some modificatrion or limitation.

It is at least arguable that the Judge in question was acting out of his own convictions both in the decision he handed down and in his personal political activity. There is no law limiting the political speech of Federal judges.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I do believe it is indeed customary for judges to recuse themselves when they have a FINANCIAL interest in a case, George. Which this judge sure seems to have.

Re: the commerce clause, the problem is that the Feds have argued for years - and the SC has upheld for years - that the Commerce clause does indeed give them the right to regulate activity that does not actually move between states. Overturning the HC mandate would fly in the face of many other decisions they have made, stating that the gov't DOES have this power.

Nevertheless, my original point remains: even without the Mandate, other provisions of the law will continue unless they are overturned. They would not automatically revert to the previous situation. And I have yet to see any of you anti-reformers admit that the other provisions of the bill (besides the mandate) are in fact very popular.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

No argument avout the severability of the provisions of the HC law or about court interpretations to date of just what constitutes interstate commerce. However the provisions in question of the HC law require individuals to engage in a certain form of commerce - as opposed to regulating what they may choose to do. A smart lawyer can find lots of absurd consequences of such a precedent and that, in my view yields, a good chance the provision may be overthrown.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Look, okie, why don't you make this easy on yourself. Instead of engaging in these twisting, tortuous rationalizations, why don't you just say that whatever the Republicans do is OK and whatever the Democrats do isn't. That would be a whole lot simpler and a lot more consistent than always coming up with these transparently hypocritical distinctions.

You are close to catching on, but you still have the parties switched. You see joe, multitudes of people are sick of the bias in the media, with all the twisted, torturous rationalizations for Democrats and liberals, which folks like you are apparently totally blind to, or are too dishonest to admit to it.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I'm as tired of rehashing the Clinton affair as anyone, but I just can't ignore the hypocrisy of his liberal supporters who insist that there was nothing wrong with what he did, beyond marital infidelity.

Wait...apparently I can.

Carry on.

I am tired of it too, but I am more tired of liberal hypocrisy, which they don't like when reminded of it. I think they deserve a reminder now and then, to which they pull out their tried and true whipping boy, George Bush, who to their frustration will be remembered as an honorable and honest president that had the guts to stay committed to a cause that saved tens of thousands of lives, perhaps even millions, in Iraq and the world. They continue to repeat the mantra that Bush lied, while they ignore that Congress voted approval of the war and later stabbed Bush in the back by claiming he made WMD all up. They are morally sick, Finn.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

You are close to catching on, but you still have the parties switched. You see joe, multitudes of people are sick of the bias in the media, with all the twisted, torturous rationalizations for Democrats and liberals, which folks like you are apparently totally blind to, or are too dishonest to admit to it.

Are you suggesting that your own hypocrisy is simply a reaction to the perceived hypocrisy of the media?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Without the mandate the law will be ripe for repeal or serious revision.

Well, you may think so, but there are a few facts to consider:

1, that only one lower-court judge has currently ruled against the mandate, while two others have ruled in FAVOR of it;

2, that 12 OTHER lower-court judges have simply refused to hear the case in the first place.

3, that the Appeals court is very likely to overturn the current decision.

I expect this issue to be resolved by the US Supreme Court, but no matter how many judges decide one way or the other, or even what the ultimate result may be, the statement "Without the mandate the law will be ripe for repeal or serious revision." is accurate and so there is no need to consider your first three points.

4, that the rest of the bill - other than the mandate - is EXTREMELY popular, and it will be very difficult politically to campaign on repealing these provisions.

There are provision in the law that are indeed popular and so you are correct that an outright repeal of the entire legislation will be politically difficult, but an outright, full repeal is not necessary. I will settle for a major overhaul.

You may think that the bill makes no sense without the mandate, but the law is the law, and any supposition on your part that a repeal or major change will happen is foolish at best.

I'm hardly the only one who believes the law can't work as written without the mandate and that if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional there will have to be some degree of revision. Given the political dynamics at play right now and what we might expect to be at play over the next two years, an opening for revision provided by a struck down mandate will be a gift for the GOP which they will put to good use.

I would caution all against getting excited about a single lower-court ruling, by a very Conservative judge, who was shopped around for in VA by a very Conservative AG.

I'm not excited, I'm pleased and encouraged. With or without a legal victory on the mandate, however, Obamacare will be reopened and revised. It may take until after the 2012 elections for the revisions to stick, but it will not surrvive in its current form.

Quote:

Without private insurance what is left but the so-called public option, or socialized medicine.

I hope so, because it's far superior to our current sitch.

Like I said, your honest about your socialistic thinking. A breath of fresh in a stuffy room of dissembling lefties.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Of course "abuse" means "marital infidelity" to some but that could just be the loss of decency in language.

And there are some who believe marital fidelity is an antiquated vestige of puritanical values, but that could just be the loss of decency in people, and I'm tired of the Clinton melodrama.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Are you suggesting that your own hypocrisy is simply a reaction to the perceived hypocrisy of the media?

joe, I don't take your accusation lightly. I admit to defending Republicans when I feel it is justified, and perhaps you are right, I am not treating the cases as equally as I should. However, it was President Obama that was dis-respected, was it not? So I am condemning that just as strongly as if it had been a Republican president, I think. In regard to Joe Wilson telling the president "you lie," at least that does not have gutter words involved, and he merely said what he very much believed to be true. I think there is a difference there and I do not think it is hypocritical to separate those two occurrences.

I think your primary reason for your accusation of hypocrisy is the statement by Cheney to Leahy, so that my call for resignation should have included Cheney as well, for that type of talk. That is a tough one, I admit that is pretty reprehensible language to use in D.C. by a V.P. to a senator.

I brought up the Clinton escapades in the Whitehouse, which does not involve gutter language, but it does involve what I would view as gutter behavior that still believe should have been roundly condemned by not only both parties, but by the press as well. I say this because I still remember when Republican Senator Bob Packwood was summarily chased out of office for supposedly making passes at women in his office. In his case, Republicans did not circle the wagons. They instead helped show him the door. In contrast, Democrats circled the wagons and so did the press, around Clinton. And in his case, it wasn't only cavorting with interns that parents trusted Washington with, but there were even accusations of rape by several women against Clinton, some with some seemingly good evidence. I am absolutely convinced that if the same had happened with George Bush, Bush would have been shown the door by both parties and by the press, and he would have resigned in fairly short order, with embarrassment as well. I could be wrong, but that would be my expectation after observing the parties and the press for the past few decades.

As far as resigning his office for disrespectful language to Obama, perhaps one would have to have been there to know if it crossed the line. Aren't we told it was not loud at all, so if that is the case, I might reconsider what I posted.

I guess my primary point is that I believe we need to have more civility and more decent language in D.C., but I admit that it is difficult to compare the cases and judge which ones deserve a resignation, versus perhaps an apology, etc.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Simply owning stock in Campaign Solutions Inc didn't require Judge Hudson to recuse himself, but I would like to learn more of this from less biased sources. It appears that characterizing Hudson as a part owner of the firm is an attempt to suggest more than may be the case. Technically anyone that owns a single share of stock in Ford Motor Co is a part owner, and $15,000 to $50,000 may or may not represent a sizable chunk.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I think your primary reason for your accusation of hypocrisy is the statement by Cheney to Leahy, so that my call for resignation should have included Cheney as well, for that type of talk. That is a tough one, I admit that is pretty reprehensible language to use in D.C. by a V.P. to a senator.

Well, I've spent more than enough time discussing the Cheney issue, the one central to this whole discussion of whether I'm a hypocrite or not. On to more important things.

Quote:

I say this because I still remember when Republican Senator Bob Packwood was summarily chased out of office for supposedly making passes at women in his office. In his case, Republicans did not circle the wagons. They instead helped show him the door.

Ummmm, Okie, that was for sexual harassment. That is a very serious issue.

Quote:

In contrast, Democrats circled the wagons and so did the press, around Clinton. And in his case, it wasn't only cavorting with interns that parents trusted Washington with

Ummm, Okie, that was a relationship between two consenting adults. Can you not even get the facts right? Parents can't make decisions for 21 year old adults.

What of the parents who trust their presidents to not launch illegal and immoral invasions where their children are maimed and killed.

What you should be talking about is the shameful behavior, the pack dog behavior of the Republicans shooting for an impeachment on such spurious grounds, not to mention the absolutely silly investigation by that hatchet man, what's his face?

Where was the call to action for an investigation of 9/11. Probably the worst event the USA has ever suffered and it gets stuffed in a drawer for 400 some days while all the evidence is sold off to China and other countries.

Bush outs a CIA agent and same thing. Bush breaks US law after US law and again, nothing, from the press, the vast majority of your elected leaders and certainly not from you.

Reagan and his numerous crimes. Nothing from anyone who should have spoken out and a constant defense from you.

Your hypocrisy is constant and stunning in that you seem to have no conception of the volume you spew.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Your hypocrisy is constant and stunning in that you seem to have no conception of the volume you spew.

That is the way you and those on your side of the aisle see it, and I suspect there will be no agreement on this, regardless how long we debate it.

We conservatives see the hypocrisy on a constant ongoing basis, JTT. How about this in regard to no bid contracts. Clearly, here is a case of Obama giving a 25 million dollar contract to a supporter of his. And this was after Obama himself repeatedly criticized that type of stuff.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-steers-lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/
"Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor
Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, ..."

1 Reply

@okie,

It's hypocrisy, not to mention dishonesty to avoid pointed issues that illustrate your hypocrisy and dishonesty, Okie and fly off on a separate tangent.

Instead of addressing it, your first thought after you read my post: "Where can I go to find some **** on Obama? I know, Fox!"

Let's make that the very next topic after you've addressed this one. That would be in keeping with your notion of personal responsibility.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know