Obamacare Upheld

[Worriedman]

Had I control of the reins of the republican party, and was facing the upcoming election, I would have done my best to induce Roberts to make the ruling that he did. As bright as Roberts has been in his rulings until the present, this departure from what one would imagine his take to be is astounding, so much so that an ulterior motive MUST be the only answer.

Had the ACA been struck down, it would have removed Health Care as a factor in the campaign, forcing Romney to bring forth a strong position of some type to differentiate him from Obama. Now there is a simple distinction, one candidate running on having instituted the largest tax and most egregious imposition of force by government on the individual citizen ever, and a professor of being against said enforcement. A multitude of similarities between the two candidates can be disregarded by the simple notion that Romney opposes the Health Care proposal.

Pretty shrewd if you ask me. That our ability to seek care for our loved ones (and self) is being used as chips in the poker game of politics is immaterial to those who love power, is worthy of note.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I don't know about the Dems trickery by "deeming it passed" in the House. There may be something to it.

Wasn't there a furor (maybe still, is and should be) about the Hughes Amendment not being voted on?

The deal with the Hughes ammendment was this. There are two ways to vote a "by name" vote and a "voice" vote. A voice vote is used to speed up the voting process otherwise they need to wait on everybody who is present to vote. And a voice vote is basically whichever side yells the loudest wins the vote.

When the Hughes ammendment came up the Republicans wanted a by name vote. But Charlie Rangel, being the speaker at the time, chose to hold a voice vote on the ammendment. He did this probably because he knew it would not pass a by name vote. But when it came up for vote the "nahs" overwhelmingly won by all accounts but Charlie Rangle, being the judge of which side yelled the loudest, declared the "yeahs" have it. And then the Hughes ammendment passed. Even Democrats at the time were saying it did not pass.

There are so many tricks and tactics used by both sides. And this is because almost every representative is a lawyer of some sort. And they are able to read and understand all the legal speak and use it against us.

There are a lot of people who are using NFA items to fund their retirment as well as using it as the basis their businesses. And for this reason I do not believe it will ever get repealed. There are way too many people who would lobby against it for financial reasons alone. I would love to see a push to make it legal to make a MG again. And in a time when the government obviously needs money they should make it legal to do so and hire in about 5,000 more examiners to reduce the wait times to days rather than months.

I will say there is a push by a lot of MAJOR manufacturers of suppressors to have them removed from requirement to be approved by the ATF. I honestly hope they do because the cost of suppressors will drop to 1/4 what it is right now.

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Funding retirement by utilizing a disingenuous act of Congress is by definition, Crony Capitalism. In other words, Gordon,

I hope you understand my disdain for even those people. I thought I understood it the way you described. Thanks.

It's not that I wish something bad for others. Rather, it always tends to breed the next class of cynics if the previous wrong

was not righted. Right and wrong. Reason and logic. That kind of stuff can not prevail with more and more people dropping out of

the voting group because their man lost. Grab their toys and go home. Whatever you wish to call it.

When you have one to gain or lose in one endeavour or another, it isn't much different from any other investment. They may be retiring

from earlier investments, but that doesn't mean that investment doesn't still have risks. I have gains and losses from previous

investment and all the while have understood risks.

In other words, what you say is a reason, but not a justification.

So, I'm stubborn. That's one thing I'll never change my mind on.

[mav]

Now there is a simple distinction, one candidate running on having instituted the largest tax and most egregious imposition of force by government on the individual citizen ever, and a professor of being against said enforcement.

I heard this argument yesterday from some in the right wing intelligentsia as to put a positive spin on the outcome. Sorry, but I ain't buying it. There was absolutely nothing good about this ruling. The precedent Roberts has now established is cringe-worthy.

Does anyone honestly think that the average Joe is going to discern all the political arguments and legaleze of "tax" versus "penalty?" Obama and his team will come out and spin their victory by claiming that while Roberts was right on the constitutionality of ACA, he was wrong on the language; it is not a tax. The media will also provide cover for Obama the entire time by totally ignoring Robert's "tax" argument, and focus solely on the constitutionality of the law.

There is an additional element to consider. ACA has not been fully implemented yet. Parts of it are still some ethereal concept. A lot of people will not realize how bad and how expensive it is going to be since they have not yet had to endure the full force of the ACA.

[mikegideon]

Yeah,ok. I hope you don't believe that.

Of course not. I'm voting for my new Facebook friend, Dickey Weed.

[hornett22]

Of course not. I'm voting for my new Facebook friend, Dickey Weed.

[mikegideon]

You laugh. Dickey wants to get a bunch of crop dusters and spray the whole country of Pakistan with bacon fat. I love that guy! His campaign slogan... "Enough if this sh*t!".

[gjohnsoniv]

I don't believe anyone is smart enough to pull that off or dumb enough to in the case of Roberts. I don't care what the Republicans are saying about it, he failed in his decision. Besides what does he have to gain from this? They have their own healthcare and could care less about what happens to us, the citizens. It's all a giant game to them to see who can get away with what.

[Guest adurbin]

Yeah,ok. I hope you don't believe that.

Reminds me of a televangelist. "Jesus will save you, just send me ten bucks, and I'll tell him to do so"

[mikegideon]

Reminds me of a televangelist. "Jesus will save you, just send me ten bucks, and I'll tell him to do so"

Romney raised way over two million dollars after the SCOTUS ruling yesterday. He really doesn't need the money. I got one from him today asking for 3 bucks. I'm starting to think they're asking for those small dollar figures to make Obama look greedy and spendy. Fact is, he ALREADY has more money committed than Obama will ever be able to raise. If it's possible to buy an election, he's positioned to pull it off.

[Worriedman]

I heard this argument yesterday from some in the right wing intelligentsia as to put a positive spin on the outcome. Sorry, but I ain't buying it. There was absolutely nothing good about this ruling. The precedent Roberts has now established is cringe-worthy.

Not saying it was good, or smart, or in any way right, but, I would not put it past the Establishment to use it as a tool.

[mikegideon]

Not saying it was good, or smart, or in any way right, but, I would not put it past the Establishment to use it as a tool.

Already on it...

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/29/new-rnc-ad-obamacare-is-a-tax/

[mcurrier]

[Guest 270win]

There is nothing good about this court ruling. The Constitution has been trashed and either D or R politicians know now they are wide open to modify behavior by taxing people for what they don't do.

[midtennchip]

Reconciliation is not required. Budgets only require 51 votes, not 60.

Still, even if the Senate manages to go Republican, they will need an even greater majority to account for Republicans who become weak in the knees when it actually comes time for repeal. I am not optimistic about it. Hopefully I am wrong. It does happen from time to time

If we get really lucky and Obamacare is repealed, the worry then becomes what will it be replaced with. You know the Republicans are going to do something. Remember all of the TARP crap? The first attempt was a crap sandwich, and a lot of the politicians complained about it. The second attempt which was given bipartisan support ended up being worse than the first.

Actually, the Roberts opinion makes this a very different process for repeal. The Senate rules do not allow for a filibuster on bills to impose or repeal a tax. So, the reconciliation process isn't an issue. The repeal can go forward on a straight vote. There's a good article at the link below that has some explanation of why Roberts might have done what he did. Not sure I agree 100%, but it does make some sense (assuming Roberts was concerned from a political angle in the same way Justice Marshall was in Marbury v. Madison).

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/An-Act-of-Great-Cunning

And here's an article from the Left pointing out the "political genius" of Roberts's move on this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/the-political-genius-of-john-roberts/

I still have my problems with this decision. Simply, Roberts could have just ruled with the conservatives (and likely making Scalia's opinion the majority opinion in the case) and dealt with any "political" problems. The tax issue opens up a door that I don't think should be open. However, it is entirely possible that Roberts knew exactly what he was doing and made a decision similar to Justice Marshall's to preserve the effectiveness of the Court.

[mikegideon]

Stating the obvious... we need +51 seats in the Senate, no matter who gets to be dictator.

[mcurrier]

[Mike.357]

comical stuff.

At this point I don't care anymore who gets elected, what judges decide or what the president says. And nothing in the prior sentence has anything to do with the supreme court decision.

Roberts is crap, Obama is a liar, Romney is no better, the country is over.

LMAO.

The USA is not going anywhere. Nothing ever stays the same, change is the only constant.

Vote the bums out, I hear that all the time. Well who are you going to vote in? By the time they get to run for congress or whatever office they have sold out already.

Can't believe I read this whole thread and no one evoked Ronald Reagan.

[mcurrier]

White House claims ObamaCare fine a 'penalty,' despite court calling it a 'tax'

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/#ixzz1zDQoObbV

[mav]

Can't believe I read this whole thread and no one evoked Ronald Reagan.

Now that you mention it, Reagan talked about socialized medicine all the way back to 1961 on a LP titled "Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine."

[Mike.357]

Now that you mention it, Reagan talked about socialized medicine all the way back to 1961 on a LP titled "Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine."

in 1961 undoubtedly Ronny Raygun spoke in favor of socialized meds.

of all the free crap our gov't doles out health should be one of them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Is there something else I don't know about, Mike?

[Mike.357]

[media=]

[/media]

Is there something else I don't know about, Mike?

i don't pretend to speak for you, dunno what you don't know

[Mike.357]

and that video played for about 50 seconds on my end. who knows what he was saying

[Guest zort]

im so tired of all this, we can gripe and moan all day but nothing changes. tenn is a red state period. what we say doesnt matter, im still waiting on the parking lot bill to be pass but wont because of big business. and all we can do is talk but nothing changes. who cares let the apocalypse come im ready for it.