U.S. Politics

Page 147 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Rick Scott, maybe the best thing that ever happened to Obama.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/quinnipiac-shows-point-swing-in-florida-126883.html

A month ago Quinnipiac had Romney +6 in FL. Then Scott decided to try and rig the vote. Now Quinnipiac has Obama +4.

Obama also +6 in WI.

And if you've got nothing to run on, just lie.

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign asked Florida Governor Rick Scott to tone down his statements heralding improvements in the state’s economy because they clash with the presumptive Republican nominee’s message that the nation is suffering under President Barack Obama
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-21/romney-campaign-said-to-ask-scott-to-downplay-job-gains.html

Yeah. Let's make this guy president.
 
VeloCity said:
Rick Scott, maybe the best thing that ever happened to Obama.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/quinnipiac-shows-point-swing-in-florida-126883.html

A month ago Quinnipiac had Romney +6 in FL. Then Scott decided to try and rig the vote. Now Quinnipiac has Obama +4.
Just a few months ago Quinnepac had Obama with an even greater lead of +7. Before that it had Romney with a great advantage. Since then it has swung to Romney sure thing and now back to Obama sure thing.

These state polls especially see huge swings back and forth all the time. Sticking with Florida, Rasmussen reporrts recently went in a month from Obama +9 to Romney +1.

There have been no other florida polls in june, so its difficult to reach any conclusions but if future plls all show a move towards Obama, then perhaps the theory will prove true.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Yep, one party is basically out of touch with reality.

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2012/06/republicans-still-delusional-recent.html

64% of Republicans believe that Barack Obama was born in a foreign country. Only 19% of Republicans "have always believed President Obama was born in the United States", and only ~23% believe now that he was born in the US. And 64% of Rs today believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD when we invaded Iraq.

Sullivan's take:

This alternate reality is sustained by a 24 hour propaganda network, and hermetically sealed off from any external intervention. We are reaching a democratic crisis of some sorts. One major political party refuses to accept empirical truths. It has become a hall of ideological mirrors.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/one-party-is-unhinged.html
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
The Hitch said:
Just a few months ago Quinnepac had Obama with an even greater lead of +7. Before that it had Romney with a great advantage. Since then it has swung to Romney sure thing and now back to Obama sure thing.

These state polls especially see huge swings back and forth all the time. Sticking with Florida, Rasmussen reporrts recently went in a month from Obama +9 to Romney +1.

There have been no other florida polls in june, so its difficult to reach any conclusions but if future plls all show a move towards Obama, then perhaps the theory will prove true.
Oh I wasn't being completely serious. But in the long run, I do think Rick Scott is going to be a huge liability for Romney in FL.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
So...19 of 21 constitutional law professors surveyed believe that Obamacare is constitutional but only 8 believe the SC will rule that way. Kinda highlights what they think of the SC, doesn't it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-22/law-experts-say-health-measure-legal-as-some-doubt-court-agrees.html
“The precedent makes this a very easy case,” said Christina Whitman, a University of Michigan law professor. “But the oral argument indicated that the more conservative justices are striving to find a way to strike down the mandate.”..."“There was certainly a lot of hostile questioning by the more conservative members of the court,” said Jesse Choper, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley who described the court as likely to support the mandate. “It’s relatively straightforward -- if they adhere to existing doctrine, it seemed to me they’re likely to uphold it.”
Like Scalia today criticizing Obama's implementation of some components of the Dream Act, in his dissent in the AZ immigration ruling - a case that has absolutely nothing to do with the Dream Act. Scalia's not interested in what is or is not constitutional - he's already reversed himself on the mandate issue - he's a Republican activist sitting on the SC. Strange how conservatives no longer complain about "judicial activism" :rolleyes:
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
The conservative view of health care.

2. A rejection of health care egalitarianism, namely a recognition that the wealthy will purchase more and better health care than the poor. Trying to equalize health care consumption hurts the poor, since most feasible policies to do this take away cash from the poor, either directly or through the operation of tax incidence. We need to accept the principle that sometimes poor people will die just because they are poor. Some of you don’t like the sound of that, but we already let the wealthy enjoy all sorts of other goods — most importantly status — which lengthen their lives and which the poor enjoy to a much lesser degree. We shouldn’t screw up our health care institutions by being determined to fight inegalitarian principles for one very select set of factors which determine health care outcomes.
Yep, health care should be left to the free market and if the poor die, well too bad, they die.

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/eliasisquith/2012/06/the-rights-health-care-principles/
 
Wow! The individual mandate was upheld, with Roberts, of all people, casting the deciding vote (and writing the opinion; it had been predicted he would write the opinion, which is why many people thought the mandate would lose). Kennedy, the swing vote on so many other issues, dissented.

As I understand the situation, individual states may still opt out of the program. That is, the SC ruled that the government can't remove existing Medicaid to states as punishment for opting out, though the government can expand the Medicaid program. Also, Roberts dissented from the four liberal justices who sided with him on the mandate, in regarding it as a tax on commerce.

So as with Arizona's immigration law, this could be read as a split decision. But most people will see it as a big victory for Obama. Not to mention the first step in bringing (the providing of) American health care into the 20th century. Who knows, some day we might even bring it into the 21st century.

Expect to see a Tea Party campaign to impeach John Roberts!
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Merckx index said:
Wow! The individual mandate was upheld, with Roberts, of all people, casting the deciding vote (and writing the opinion; it had been predicted he would write the opinion, which is why many people thought the mandate would lose). Kennedy, the swing vote on so many other issues, dissented.

As I understand the situation, individual states may still opt out of the program. That is, the SC ruled that the government can't remove existing Medicaid to states as punishment for opting out, though the government can expand the Medicaid program. Also, Roberts dissented from the four liberal justices who sided with him on the mandate, in regarding it as a tax on commerce.

So as with Arizona's immigration law, this could be read as a split decision. But most people will see it as a big victory for Obama. Not to mention the first step in bringing (the providing of) American health care into the 20th century. Who knows, some day we might even bring it into the 21st century.

Expect to see a Tea Party campaign to impeach John Roberts!
What ****es me off the most is this:

American Bridge 21st Century uncovered this video, showing Romney at a press conference touting the individual health care mandate he now pretends to oppose.

For those who can't watch clips online, here's what the then-governor said in 2006: "With regards to the mandate, the individual responsibility program which I proposed, I was very pleased to see that the compromise from the two houses includes the personal responsibility principle. That is essential for bringing health care costs down for everyone and getting everybody the health insurance they deserve and need."

A year later, in 2007, Romney added that he hoped for "a nation that's taken a mandate approach."
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/

Romney and the cons were all for the mandate - which was a Heritage Foundation idea in the first place - up until it became Obamacare, at which point, for political reasons, it became evil socialism and other nonsense. So basically, today John Roberts and the SC upheld a conservative-formulated, conservative-backed, and conservative-implemented health care program (ie in MA) that will benefit millions of people but now conservatives pretend to hate it solely because it's become associated with Obama. I guarantee you that if it had been President Romney who introduced national Romneycare, the cons would've been fully behind it.

I'm happy that Obamacare/Romneycare (which is what it is) was upheld for two reasons, one being that it's a humane, decent law that will benefit millions of Americans, the second and more immediate reason being that it will help Obama's re-election chances.

On the other hand, in the bigger picture, it will deflate somewhat the push toward universal health care, which is what we should be focusing on, not little band-aids like this.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
All I can manage right now is a 'wow' of disbelief.

Wow! I really did not expect this!:D

'Tea Party' starts campaign to impeach Chief Justice. Probably. :p
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
Merckx index said:
Wow! The individual mandate was upheld, with Roberts, of all people, casting the deciding vote (and writing the opinion; it had been predicted he would write the opinion, which is why many people thought the mandate would lose). Kennedy, the swing vote on so many other issues, dissented.

As I understand the situation, individual states may still opt out of the program. That is, the SC ruled that the government can't remove existing Medicaid to states as punishment for opting out, though the government can expand the Medicaid program. Also, Roberts dissented from the four liberal justices who sided with him on the mandate, in regarding it as a tax on commerce.

So as with Arizona's immigration law, this could be read as a split decision. But most people will see it as a big victory for Obama. Not to mention the first step in bringing (the providing of) American health care into the 20th century. Who knows, some day we might even bring it into the 21st century.

Expect to see a Tea Party campaign to impeach John Roberts!
Not entirely.

The Government's solicitor had put forth three justifications for upholding the individual mandate:

1) the Commerce Clause (regulating interstate commerce gives broad regulating powers to the Federal Government); Roberts dissented, from the four more liberal judges, saying it only applies to regulating activity, as opposed to also inactivity

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority
2) the Necessary and Proper clause (Constitution Art 1 clause 8, sec18: make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof); Roberts argued that while it may be necessary, it wasn't proper.

Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective.
3) the penalty incurred by people who refuse to purchase health care would be administered through their tax filings. Congress has broad powers to tax, which saved the mandate. This was actually the argument the US solicitor was most hesitant to invoke to defend the ACA (and probably spent the least amount of time arguing?).

Now why was the anti-injuction act not invoked - barring review of a 'tax law' that hasn't entered into effect; i.e. there are not legitimate claimants yet:

The Affordable Care Act describes the “hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.”


So for the purpose of the Anti-Injuction Act, the penalty is a penalty, and not a tax, so the AIA doesn't apply, whereas for the purpose of the constitutionality of the ACA, the penalty is a tax, which saves the mandate.

Roberts also grants that if you don't buy insurance, which you can refuse (i.e. chipping away that the 'mandate') to purchase insurance. The consequence is that you will pay a penalty (which you may not refuse to pay)

The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy healthinsurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation.

None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful.

Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance.
Also important:

In pressing its taxingpower argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order tosave a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California,155
U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax
The judges did find that:

the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion

[...]

The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the Stateswith no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expa
The solution:

The constitutional violation is fully remedied by precluding the Secretary from applying §1396c to withdraw existing Medicaid funds for failure to comply with the requirements set out in the expansionThe other provisions of the Affordable Care Act are not affected. Congress would have wanted the rest of the Act to stand, had it known that States would have a genuine choice whetherto participate in the Medicaid expansion.
They never argued the severability issue because the ACA stands.

From what I have read, I don't really see it as a "split decision", certainly when you look at the result, .i.e. the ACA stands, and is found to be constitutional (despite it being a 5-4 decision). While the commerce clause was found (Roberts) not to be applicable, it hardly curtails the application of the commerce clause in general. Also, I think there are very few similar cases for which the government would aim to regulate (as per Roberts) 'inactivity'.

On the contrary; the Arizona opinion left a key part of the Arizon SB 1070 intact - show me your papers - which the US government argued against, using the argument that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction in immigration affairs. That seems a loss for the Federal government, because it has opened (minor) ways for states to deal with immigration independent of the USG.

It remains to be seen however for how long that provision stands, because it is highly likely that evidence will be gathered to demonstrate that the provision is unconstitutional, not based on it interfering with federal powers in immigration affairs, but because it is discriminatory in its application and it has caused racial profiling.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
All I can manage right now is a 'wow' of disbelief.

Wow! I really did not expect this!:D

'Tea Party' starts campaign to impeach Chief Justice. Probably. :p
Well, there's always FoxNews.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/06/28/individual-mandate-upheld-what-does-that-mean-for-and-your-health/

However, another expert told FoxNews.com that the consequences of not purchasing health insurance will be much more severe. “You pay the penalty and if you don’t pay the fine, you risk jail,” Dr. Elizabeth Vliet, founder of HER Place: Health Enhancement Renewal for Women, Inc. in Tucson, Ariz., told FoxNews.com. “The penalty is going to be managed through the IRS. You have all of the same powers that the IRS currently has to attach your property for unpaid taxes. It’s truly draconian in what is being proposed and what has been passed in the law.”
um, no.

Another change that will eventually go into effect is the government’s ability to seize your medical records. In order to make information more readily available for doctors during their appointments, the government hopes to create a national database of every person’s medical history.
According to Vliet, this move is a major violation of the 5th Amendment, which prohibits the government from taking private property without just compensation. “People don’t realize that right now – people are the owners of their medical records, and the doctors are their custodians,” Vliet said. “When all of these new rules go into effect, everyone will be required to send records to a government database. The biggest thing that patients will have to deal with is that government panels will be deciding their treatment and what’s allowed. Not their treatment and not the patient.”
um, no.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Once again: it is not and never was about spending, deficits, the debt, or "big government".

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/conservatives_blame_obama_colorado_wildfire_air_tanker.php

Some of the same people who have bashed the president as a big government, big spending liberal now say a wildfire that destroyed hundreds of homes in the conservative stronghold of Colorado Springs can be blamed on the president because he has been too slow to spend money to beef up the federal fleet of air tankers.

“Were these the same conservatives that were so worried about the Obama administration spending too much money, or were these different conservatives?” Hickenlooper said.
And Michelle Malkin, who wrote the original piece, is one of the people whose home is under threat and she and her family have been forced to evacuate - and now that it's her house under threat, suddenly she wants the big, bad government to come to the rescue and is complaining that they're not doing enough. :rolleyes:
 
Amsterhammer said:
All I can manage right now is a 'wow' of disbelief.

Wow! I really did not expect this!:D

'Tea Party' starts campaign to impeach Chief Justice. Probably. :p
In my perverse way of thinking, what if Roberts "helped" Obama just to get him voted out of office in Nov.

Romney said the first thing he'll do if elected is repeal Obamacare. Americans are usually reactionary and misinformed enough for them to jump on the Republican bandwaggon with this one.

For me the problem is the insurance industry, which Obama's plan, once again, makes the protagonist. Thus this is not a real socialized healthcare system. In any case Roberts motives can hardly be taken without suspicion.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
I would SERIOUSLY consider moving to Texas if it would secede from the union and re-form as The Republic of Texas. It has that power.” — Neal Boortz, conservative talk radio host.
I just don't know how all those other countries have managed to survive with full universal health programs when - clearly - Obamacare is the end of liberty, America, capitalism, blah blah blah.

And does it not occur to cons that perhaps cheering for the failure of a program that extends health care to millions and to those with pre-existing conditions might appear to be just be a bit, oh I don't know, callous? Like, as in, we don't really care if you live or die so long as we maintain ideological purity?

On the other hand, if they did take Texas and secede, I'd love to see the battle between the Santorum theocrats and the Paul libertarians for control. :rolleyes:

EDIT: oh wait, this is the best one yet:

“Officially in America we now have a totally arbitrary and limitless government. That is, we have a ‘total government.’ In short, we’ve got totalitarian government.” — Richard Salsman, a contributor at Forbes.
The stupidity is really quite impressive in its own way.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Shocking, I know. Well, shocking to Republicans, perhaps, but not to the rest of us.

Five out of six Democrats reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP, while four out of six Republicans raised it.

The story is similar on budget deficits, with five of the top six performances recorded by Democrats and four of the bottom five recorded by Republicans.

With respect to GDP growth, three of the top four performers were Democrats and four of the bottom five were Republicans.

In reducing the poverty rate, the top three were Democrats and two of the bottom three were Republicans.

The Democrats also had a better record on employment.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/democratic-presidents-are-better-for-the-economy.html
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
For that reason, Chinese readers strain to understand the political incentives for arguing against providing care. A piece about how the [US] Supreme Court’s decision will affect the campaign, broadcast on China National Radio today, struggled to explain how rational voters could find common cause with a party that seeks to prevent them from gaining access to care.
The assumption being that they're rational voters.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2012/06/so-let-me-explain-how-american-health-care-works.html#ixzz1zDW4EwMv
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
VeloCity said:
I just don't know how all those other countries have managed to survive with full universal health programs when - clearly - Obamacare is the end of liberty, America, capitalism, blah blah blah.

And does it not occur to cons that perhaps cheering for the failure of a program that extends health care to millions and to those with pre-existing conditions might appear to be just be a bit, oh I don't know, callous? Like, as in, we don't really care if you live or die so long as we maintain ideological purity?

On the other hand, if they did take Texas and secede, I'd love to see the battle between the Santorum theocrats and the Paul libertarians for control. :rolleyes:

EDIT: oh wait, this is the best one yet:

The stupidity is really quite impressive in its own way.
urban myth

Texas doesn't have the right to secede. Texas had the right to break into 5 states, for a hellacious senate voting block. that ended with their re-admission into the union after the civil war (or as some call it, the war of northern aggression) :eek::D
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Very happy to see that it is buisness as usuall in the election thread.

President Obama will win easy and the economy will pick back up. That is how this will play out. So I have no idea why you liberals without a direction even come in here and worry with it?

:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY