tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post5108874747993343385..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Obama shill begins to understand the Supreme Court ruling on ObamacareTAXmregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-41430485264022037182012-12-14T05:47:48.479-05:002012-12-14T05:47:48.479-05:00Hey! How do you personally think, has your writtin...Hey! How do you personally think, has your writting style improved so far?Taylorhttp://gildeddiva.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-89732048012085449472012-07-06T11:21:01.523-04:002012-07-06T11:21:01.523-04:00Data (especially political) is often compiled by t...<i>Data (especially political) is often compiled by think tanks with an agenda attached to the payroll of the organization.</i><br /><br />The data in this case in not compiled by a think tank. The data is that states rights candidates can't even get nominated most of the time, let alone elected.<br /><br /><i>This is an interesting point you make. I had always thought the 'earmark' issue was concerning private political fabvours in return for votes. Kind of like 'you vote for me (or contribute to my election fund), I'll get your save the field mice/coal mine in the national park bill.'</i><br /><br />They usually are, but that's generally where you have specific programs marked out for specific funding. And that's why - a Congressman wants a particular program funded because it helps his constituency, so rather than leaving the specifics of how to procure military equipment to the Department of Defense, they earmark money for a particular weapons system that just happens to be manufactured in large part in that Congressman's district.<br /><br /><i>That kind of thing. What I am suggesting is that the revenue agencies work out what they need and for what for the programs they have before the decide how much to tax the public. Example: We need X for the defence budget, so we will need X from the coffers in 2013.</i><br /><br />There is only one revenue agency in the U.S. government: the Treasury. Specifically the IRS. And they don't set the tax code. Congress does. And they usually set the tax code without regard to the spending bills they pass. The laws concerning revenue and the laws concerning appropriations aren't even passed through the same committees in the legislature.<br /><br /><i>So any sort of de funding of the ACA would result in other health programs being scaled down in order to pay for ACA?</i><br /><br />What I am trying to say is that the structure of federal spending is such that talking about "defunding" the ACA without actually repealing it is kind of a nonsense statement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25077085343172371682012-07-06T07:54:45.254-04:002012-07-06T07:54:45.254-04:00"Anecdotes aren't data. The data is that ..."Anecdotes aren't data. The data is that the "states rights" movement is politically flimsy."<br />Agreed. Experience (the anecdotes you refer to) is first hand. Data (especially political) is often compiled by think tanks with an agenda attached to the payroll of the organization. That aside, the only data I have seen is in the form of US government reports that suggest such movements are 'volatile'. Some even suggesting 'domestic terrorism' may result from these type of 'fringe' groups being antagonized.<br /><br />"Programs are generally not specifically funded, except in the case of the generally decried "earmarks"."<br />This is an interesting point you make. I had always thought the 'earmark' issue was concerning private political fabvours in return for votes. Kind of like 'you vote for me (or contribute to my election fund), I'll get your save the field mice/coal mine in the national park bill.' That kind of thing. What I am suggesting is that the revenue agencies work out what they need and for what for the programs they have before the decide how much to tax the public. Example: We need X for the defence budget, so we will need X from the coffers in 2013.<br /><br />"gencies are given appropriations with general instructions as to their use. In the case of the ACA, administration of the provisions of the statute has been directed to the Department of Health and Human Services"<br />So any sort of de funding of the ACA would result in other health programs being scaled down in order to pay for ACA? <br /><br />" I seriously doubt any political movement could defund HHS without an effort large enough to make repealing the ACA look like a cakewalk in comparison."<br />Well, in effect is that not what ACA does? I mean unless the HHS budget is dramatically increased by this 'tax' the funds will be greatly reduced by the implementation of ACA, no?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-58092113118317593122012-07-06T07:44:39.570-04:002012-07-06T07:44:39.570-04:00Modus,
I think the car insurance thing is a bad a...Modus,<br /><br />I think the car insurance thing is a bad analogy. <br />Here's why. <br /><br />1. People do not HAVE to drive. If they feel the insurance premiums are too high, they can take the bus, walk, hitch a ride, ride a bike etc. <br />People, on the other hand, do have to live. They cannot simply die for a year or two (credit to one my favourite Atheists - Douglas Adams) to avoid insurance costs or taxes. Therefore car insurance is NOT mandatory because driving a car is not mandatory. Driving is a luxury and a privilege. Living is a right. <br />2.As previous posters have noted, it is a state controlled law on a luxury/privilege, not a federally mandated tax on a right (life). <br /><br />As a supporter of universal health care, I am not arguing that some sort of program is not beneficial, I am simply suggesting that the car insurance argument is a straw man.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-42823878641452722562012-07-05T23:18:46.135-04:002012-07-05T23:18:46.135-04:00I still dont see how this is a 'tax.' Typi...I still dont see how this is a 'tax.' Typically one pays taxes on services rendered. And penalties for something you don't have, but should. IN NYS, we pay penalties for not having our cars inspected yearly...Mulderhttp://muldonia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-37211942553417463022012-07-05T22:32:47.420-04:002012-07-05T22:32:47.420-04:00mregnor, uninsured people are a Negative Externali...mregnor, uninsured people are a Negative Externality just waiting to happen, generally when it's too late to cheaply treat the problem, and too often using ER (both the most expensive and ineffective way) to do it. Besides the moral price, that's already an economic cost you're paying.<br />A federal mandate is better than a state mandate, as the same issue of the free rider problem can occur on the state level as the individual person level. (It happens on the nation level too, <a href="http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opinion/sarah-palin-canadian-health-care-031010" rel="nofollow">as Governor Palin</a> or any of the people who hop a border or use the interweb for cheap prescriptions illustrate)<br /><br />And, Mulder, you shouldn't be surprised that they're against it. Obama came out for it (and, I suspect, the idea of the Individual Mandate was only brought up by the GOP to damp the threat of HillaryCare while still attempting to maintain the fascade of the GOP as the "Party of Ideas" instead of the "Party of 'No!'").Modusoperandihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04213914791604385761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-17289976883274938312012-07-05T21:35:20.146-04:002012-07-05T21:35:20.146-04:00Car insurance is mandatory under state laws.
Fed...Car insurance is mandatory under state laws. <br /><br />Federal laws may not force you to buy things, at least not on the basis of the Commerce Clause, according to the Supreme Court.<br /><br />Apparently you can be taxed by the feds if you fail to buy things, according to the Court.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28949470247269634802012-07-05T20:20:19.951-04:002012-07-05T20:20:19.951-04:00"Read my lips. No new taxes." -Bush Sr.
..."Read my lips. No new taxes." -Bush Sr.<br /><br />2 years later, taxes raised. Did you piss and moan about that republican back then? No? Well others did, like Pat Buchanan.<br /><br />Also, i believe in the U.S. car insurance is mandatory. Buy a car, you gotta have insurance. Why? Because of the potential financial burden on others. "Well, Mulder, its not the same..I can have a license but not auto insurance if I don't drive a car." Then why have a license? Taking the bus doesnt cost anyone else anything.<br /><br />I'm actually surprised that republicans are against this. Pay your way, and you're OK.Mulderhttp://muldonia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36683603819991160132012-07-05T15:37:40.921-04:002012-07-05T15:37:40.921-04:00Forgive me for disagreeing but most of the America...<i>Forgive me for disagreeing but most of the Americans I know are at least partially inclined or sympathetic to this 'fringe ideology' (they call it 'Constitutionalism' btw).</i><br /><br />Anecdotes aren't data. The data is that the "states rights" movement is politically flimsy.<br /><br />"<i>So if a program is de-funded and there is no extra funds to be had due to debt and deficit expenses, something else must be cut in order to pay for the program - even if that de-funding has been democratically mandated?</i>"<br /><br />Programs are generally not specifically funded, except in the case of the generally decried "earmarks". Agencies are given appropriations with general instructions as to their use. In the case of the ACA, administration of the provisions of the statute has been directed to the Department of Health and Human Services. I seriously doubt any political movement could defund HHS without an effort large enough to make repealing the ACA look like a cakewalk in comparison.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-71376164675448947692012-07-05T15:34:06.603-04:002012-07-05T15:34:06.603-04:00You have a double standard if you demand that repu...<i>You have a double standard if you demand that republicans enforce obamacare to the letter of the law, but you have no objection to democrats' flouting of immigration law.</i><br /><br />I didn't say that I have no objection to the Democrats not enforcing immigration law. I said why it is a different situation than with respect to the ACA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-63971578846686755202012-07-05T15:30:15.205-04:002012-07-05T15:30:15.205-04:00[In law enforcement there is a principle called &q...[In law enforcement there is a principle called "prosecutorial discretion" that is not applicable in other government actions.<br /><br />If anyone thinks the Obama Administration is not enforcing the immigration laws properly, they could bring a writ of mandamus to try to compel it to do so. No one in Congress has done this. I wonder why that is?]<br /><br />Obama has explicitly refused to enforce many aspects of immigration law. Indeed that is prosecutorial discretion. <br /><br />Prosecutorial discretion can be used with other laws as well. <br /><br />You have a double standard if you demand that republicans enforce obamacare to the letter of the law, but you have no objection to democrats' flouting of immigration law.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-86579204818623883112012-07-05T15:27:57.450-04:002012-07-05T15:27:57.450-04:00"The "States rights" movement is a ..."The "States rights" movement is a fringe ideology with limited political power."<br />Forgive me for disagreeing but most of the Americans I know are at least partially inclined or sympathetic to this 'fringe ideology' (they call it 'Constitutionalism' btw). Pretty much ALL the folks I work with in the US Military (mostly Army, but also some Marines, Navy, USAF, and USCG too) are very pro States rights. <br /><br />"Taxes raised by the government go into the general fund, and are then divvied up by the Treasury to agencies as needed to discharge their obligations as directed by the appropriations laws."<br />So if a program is de-funded and there is no extra funds to be had due to debt and deficit expenses, something else must be cut in order to pay for the program - even if that de-funding has been democratically mandated? That seems a very problematic system in terms of making sure the money gets where it is supposed to go. <br />No wonder there is such a massive debt!<br />Maybe that is something that should be reformed?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79674336681457332692012-07-05T15:06:02.951-04:002012-07-05T15:06:02.951-04:00You must buy a product under law. If you don't...<i>You must buy a product under law. If you don't, you have to pay a fine, which has now been declared a "tax." If it weren't a "tax" it wouldn't be constitutional.</i><br /><br />Do you have health insurance already? If so, you pay no fine and are not taxed.<br /><br /><i>Here's another clue, Anonymous. Those "subsidies" that you speak of aren't free. They're subsidized by the taxpayer. The middle class pays federal income taxes. I should know, I'm one of those middle class taxpayers. So this subsidies are funded by...me.</i><br /><br />Unlikely.<br /><br />First off, have your tax rates gone up? if not, you haven't been taxed anything more than otherwise.<br /><br />Second: The middle class pays a very small percentage of the revenue paid to the Federal government. (The middle 20% of taxpayers pay about 14% of the total income tax). The top 5% of taxpayers paid 53% of the income tax. If you are middle-class, those subsidies are being primarily funded by people who have a lot more income than you.<br /><br /><i>Also, Obamacare contains 21 new taxes. Some of them might not seem to apply to the middle class. Those are the "corporate" taxes that are handed on to the consumer in the price of goods we buy.</i><br /><br />Sorry, but pricing doesn't work that way. You need to go back and study some remedial economics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48015121731462798532012-07-05T14:57:44.855-04:002012-07-05T14:57:44.855-04:00You said so yourself.
You seem to have missed the...<i>You said so yourself.</i><br /><br />You seem to have missed the "via reconciliation" language. It wasn't the Senate version that was signed into law. It was a blended version that emerged from reconciliation. The reconciliation process adopted the Senate version because more of the House members liked that one than the original House version, but the bill originated in the House. <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03962:@@@R" rel="nofollow">Go look at the legislative action history yourself if you want</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-83889108823747024552012-07-05T14:37:22.966-04:002012-07-05T14:37:22.966-04:00This sucks, you're right.
But the good news ...This sucks, you're right. <br /><br />But the good news is that Obama is going to have to defend his new tax, after telling us that there was no way he was going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year. <br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55964854178092755822012-07-05T14:35:37.914-04:002012-07-05T14:35:37.914-04:00"The House then abandoned its version in favo..."The House then abandoned its version in favor of the Senate version via reconciliation..."<br /><br />You said so yourself.<br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-88214498482464918892012-07-05T14:31:33.694-04:002012-07-05T14:31:33.694-04:00You must buy a product under law. If you don't...You must buy a product under law. If you don't, you have to pay a fine, which has now been declared a "tax." If it weren't a "tax" it wouldn't be constitutional. <br /><br />Ergo, the middle class is being taxed. <br /><br />Here's another clue, Anonymous. Those "subsidies" that you speak of aren't free. They're subsidized by the taxpayer. The middle class pays federal income taxes. I should know, I'm one of those middle class taxpayers. So this subsidies are funded by...me. <br /><br />Also, Obamacare contains 21 new taxes. Some of them might not seem to apply to the middle class. Those are the "corporate" taxes that are handed on to the consumer in the price of goods we buy. <br /><br />Beyond those, there are taxes on medical devices and on tanning beds. There's a surtax of 1% on people who refuse to buy government approved insurance, rising to 2.5% by 2016. <br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-65131655170997049282012-07-05T14:28:41.913-04:002012-07-05T14:28:41.913-04:00So the Senate version of the bill is what was sign...<i>So the Senate version of the bill is what was signed into law.</i><br /><br />No. It was the reconciled version that was signed into law. Almost all bills go through reconciliation, including appropriations and revenue bills. Reconciliation is where the members of both houses get together with their respective versions and work out how to mesh the two together into a final product.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-40935344161061629142012-07-05T14:19:50.819-04:002012-07-05T14:19:50.819-04:00So the Senate version of the bill is what was sign...So the Senate version of the bill is what was signed into law. <br /><br />So I'm right.<br /><br />Yes, you can incorporate two bills into one using incorporation. And in most cases it doesn't matter if it originates in one house or the other. Considering the the fact that the administration was arguing that it was not a tax, it wasn't germane to a non-revenue bill. <br /><br />But the fact that a valid process was used to incorporate the two bills into one doesn't negate the fact that it was the Senate version that stood and the House version that fell. <br /><br />TRISHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-29448130478244337662012-07-05T13:34:56.444-04:002012-07-05T13:34:56.444-04:00Will the States rights movement see this 'tact...<i>Will the States rights movement see this 'tactic' of appropriations as sound and accept it as the norm, or will they react as I have predicted?</i><br /><br />The "States rights" movement is a fringe ideology with limited political power. They couldn't even secure the Republican nomination for Ron Paul, the putative champion of that ideology.<br /><br />You seem to think that U.S. Federal taxes are segregated when collected, earmarked for specific purposes when they are levied. Though this is the case in some limited areas (for example, the gasoline tax is earmarked for transportation improvements) it isn't usual, and isn't how the taxes under the ACA appear to work. Taxes raised by the government go into the general fund, and are then divvied up by the Treasury to agencies as needed to discharge their obligations as directed by the appropriations laws.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-88476663514335571482012-07-05T13:27:09.845-04:002012-07-05T13:27:09.845-04:00But that's exactly what the Obama administrati...<i>But that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing with immigration law.<br /><br />Why the double standard?</i><br /><br />In law enforcement there is a principle called "prosecutorial discretion" that is not applicable in other government actions.<br /><br />If anyone thinks the Obama Administration is not enforcing the immigration laws properly, they could bring a writ of mandamus to try to compel it to do so. No one in Congress has done this. I wonder why that is?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-21504664944653388332012-07-05T12:55:17.728-04:002012-07-05T12:55:17.728-04:00PS / Also
My final question: Will the States right...PS / Also<br />My final question: Will the States rights movement see this 'tactic' of appropriations as sound and accept it as the norm, or will they react as I have predicted? <br />If it is the latter, then once again would it not be more prudent to argue these matters in the houses rather than force the issue by agency mandate and the appropriation of funding from other programs and initiatives.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4231262606926683042012-07-05T12:51:32.292-04:002012-07-05T12:51:32.292-04:00Mike,
"But that's exactly what the Obama...Mike, <br />"But that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing with immigration law."<br />That is exactly why I assumed de-funding would work in the first place, and also why I described it as a 'tactic'. I often use such words. Please try to think of them as analogous. It is my training shining through, I suppose. <br /><br />"Why the double standard?"<br />That would be my question also. <br /><br />Anon, <br />you state:<br />"If legislation says "agencies are supposed to do X", then they are supposed to do their best to do those things, regardless of whether Congress fully funds it or not." <br />I'll freely admit that this aspect completely mystifies and fascinates me. <br />Two questions! <br />First and multifaceted: If congress and/or the senate de-fund a project or initiative, are they not doing so on behalf of their electorate? A follow up to this: If that is so, who or what authority does an agency have to defy the will of the peoples elected bodies? That is to say, what legal route is there to appropriate funds from other sources that are not mandated by the electorate via the houses of government? <br />The second question is: What if the initiative is GUTTED. Not merely a loss of some funding, but completely hamstrung by closing all source of revenue (ie the supporting tax funding)?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28053299391369411662012-07-05T12:42:16.615-04:002012-07-05T12:42:16.615-04:00Cheers, Oleg.
I think I have a better grasp of th...Cheers, Oleg. <br />I think I have a better grasp of the process now...at least when it comes to the normal channels of governance. You have demystified it for me!<br />Thanks :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-58153213018971479662012-07-05T12:40:11.915-04:002012-07-05T12:40:11.915-04:00[Its not a tactic. It is a requirement of the law....[Its not a tactic. It is a requirement of the law. Agencies are not supposed to pick and choose whether to follow a law. If legislation says "agencies are supposed to do X", then they are supposed to do their best to do those things, regardless of whether Congress fully funds it or not.]<br /><br />But that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing with immigration law.<br /><br />Why the double standard?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.com