“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Friday, June 29, 2012

Has Obama taxed the under thirties big time?

74 comments:

  1. Regardless of the merits, everyone knows this command by Washington, Inc. will in aggregate cost more money. All transfer payments cost someone something. In this case, the healthy young are being forced to buy private insurance transferring their wealth to the insurance industry and the largest users of health insurance, the elderly and the chronically ill.

    Social Security is now underfunded. There is no surplus or investment to draw down on. This burden increases on the working young and small business formation.

    The board of directors and vested investors of Washington, Inc. will try and hide as much of this through their well honed and combined artifice, but it will show through. Let’s see if it gets through before November.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The last time I checked, unemployment was higher among the youth and for the average non-technically trained young person, ten dollars an hour goes only so far. Potential employers will be very hesitant to hire beyond the threshold where employers will be mandated to provide health care or fined for not doing so.

    Just how large a tax increase is this on the middle class worker? Perhaps they should be told.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But that's ok, Deuce. Now they can sit on their lard asses under their daddy's insurance policy until they are 26. It's a good time to buy stock in Cheetos and Wii. This will also make them life time Democrats, which is, after all, the ultimate goal of Washington, Inc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have Tricare Prime, and my handicapped son got thrown off my insurance when he turned 21 because he wasn't IN SCHOOL. There are always strings attached. If they think the average 26 year old is gonna get to stay on mom and dad's insurance while he loafs around on his butt, they got another think coming....they better be enrolled in college where they can continue their indoctrination.

      Delete
  4. It is obvious Roberts changed his mind. Scalia's dissent makes reference to the other side as "the dissent". This implies that Scalia's dissent was previously the majority opinion and Roberts switched his vote. Wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good catch, but the conclusion not necessarily.

      How does the deliberation process work?

      Do the justices "consult" and debate internally?

      Scalia's writing may reflect an assumption on his part.

      Delete
    2. Oh I see.

      The Volokh Conspiracy

      The dissent was not signed by Scalia. Court watchers are saying it is a composite document.

      Delete
  5. I predicted that America was going to take a 25% standard of living hit 3 years ago.

    I predicted that Obama was cuckholding us in Afpak to "tire" us from using war as a weapon and to neuter us. (just ask deuce his completely cuckholded)

    I predicted that America was turning into Amerika and was screamed at called Un-American and vilified by Rufus and assorted others...

    I predicted the Moslem Brotherhood was taking over the Arab world and was scoffed at...

    I told how Obama had arab terrorists friends and was ridiculed. (they met at the whitehouse last week in public)

    How do you like me now?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, we're trying to get the same level of healthcare for our poor as Israel, and all of Europe, Australia, Canada, and Latin America. Goin' "Nazi" big time.

    The answer to your question: "Same as before"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Let the rumors begin:

    Did the minority's uncompromising insistence on invalidating the entire law push Roberts to join the moderates in upholding it? We won't know until the next tell-all book on the court...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rufus IIFri Jun 29, 10:20:00 AM EDT
    Yeah, we're trying to get the same level of healthcare for our poor as Israel, and all of Europe, Australia, Canada, and Latin America. Goin' "Nazi" big time.

    The answer to your question: "Same as before"

    Reply


    Thanks Rufus, I would expect nothing more from someone of your positions...

    However Israel does have a much better universal healthcare and also taxes it's people at a much higher rate.

    Of course, they are 1/40th the size of America and are a nation at war.


    America is going towards Amerika.

    Thanks to Rufus's boy in the Whitehouse. Of course, Rufus has no issues with arab terrorists, no issues Obama and no issues with freedom...

    Dont lose any sweat Rufus, I still think of you as you think of me...

    the only difference? YOU want to see an America transformed into Amerika, I dont...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Grayson was right. The Republican Plan always boils down to:

    1) If you're poor, don't get sick, and

    2) If you're poor, and do get sick, Die Quickly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What 100% horseshit.

      Most of us would though like to keep a little of our own money and not see it all go to say Aid To Mothers With Dependent Children or a thousand other programs that pay for the irresponsibility of others.

      b

      Delete
    2. But, your republican heroes are against Contraception. You guys are going in circles.

      Delete
    3. .


      Good lord, Rufus, you have gone off the deep end.


      .

      Delete
  10. In answer to the Exit Question:

    "No, we're just helping them with a little *Life Planning,* ala Social Security, and Medicare."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Have any of you Obama-bashers ever asked yourselves why the Republicans never met a Foreign War they didn't like, or a "social" program that they did?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Ah, there it is, the Red Herring.

      Why should my opinion of the GOP have any influence on what I think of Obama?

      .

      Delete
    2. And what party gave us Vietnam, again?

      b

      Delete
    3. "By their enemies thy shalt know them?"

      Delete
    4. .

      What the hell does that mean?

      Now you're starting to sound as looney as T with her Bible quotes.

      .

      Delete
    5. .

      Still don't get it.

      Are you praising me for disliking Obama?

      .

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. .

      What I think of the GOP has absolutely nothing to do with what I think of Obama.

      It's not an either/or proposition. Only a kool-aid drinker would think it was.

      .

      Delete
    8. Depending on how I felt about "You," your opinion of Obama's greatest enemy, the GOP, would affect how I felt about Obama.

      If I thought you were "pure evil" and you loved the GOP, I might be more inclined to think positively of Obama (or vice versa, ad infinitum.)

      Delete
    9. .


      As I've suspected for a long time, illogical.

      Them Cherokee are crazy people.


      .

      Delete
  12. To a large extent it was the Jim Crow Democrats (now, called Republicans.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was LBJ, big progressive guy, Great Society and all that.

      Who is keeping us in Afghanistan, now Osama's dead?

      Ike would have kept us out of Vietnam.

      You are full of shit on nearly everything.

      I see a couple more stimulus funded green energy ventures went down today.

      b

      Delete
    2. Got news for you, bubba. Ike put the first troops INTO Vietnam.

      Delete
  13. .

    Just how large a tax increase is this on the middle class worker? Perhaps they should be told.


    On the last stream, I voiced my admiration for the decision on Obamacare; however, that admiration was strictly for the logic of the legal decision.

    That does not mean that I admire Obamacare. To compare it to Romneycare is just plain silly. Romneycare was 70 pages long. Obamacare is 2300 (?). Once all the rules and regulations are written into it, it could reach 10,000 pages. It is a massive example of overreach and intrusion by the federal government. Even Howard Dean has said that it is at least 1000 pages too long and goes into areas were it wasn't necessary and where they shouldn't have.

    Sure there are some good aspects in the bill. How couldn't there be given it's size. However, the bill and the process for getting it passed were marked by hubris and deceipt. The country was fed the big lie, "This is not a tax", in fact, the main purpose of this bill was purported to be cost containment and it was promised would actually reduce costs in the future. But even then, the only way they were able to gain passage was through bribes, waivers, sellouts to the healthcare companies and big pharma, rigging the numbers they gave to CBO, front-loading the program and backloading both savings and cost, and then more lies and deception. In fact, the way they got it past the court was in reversing themselves under verbal argument and actually admitting it was a tax.

    As I said, there are some good aspects to the law; but these are more than offset by the bad. The bill was designed to promote the liberal ideology of the Dems. They threw every tick point from their agenda that they could possibly think of into it. We have seen the result with it's attack on 1st Amendement rights of religious institutions. Similarly, the left laughs at Sarah Palin's 'death panel' reference, but that is exactly what the IPAB is. As for cost containment, you've got to be kidding me.

    The bill was presented as costing less than $1 trillion. Recent CBO estimates have doubled that estimate. And that does not cover the SCOTUS ruling. Now the Medicaid provision that was supposed to cover the majority of people without insurance has been shot down. The alternative is for the states to go along with the provision voluntarily or for the Feds to pick up the cost through subsidies for those people to buy insurance thus further expanding the costs of the bill.

    The idea that this bill guarantees universal coverage is also silly. There are too many examples to go into in this post but if challenged on this point I guess I can dig them up.

    To summarize, Obamacare may be legal but it is hardly good policy.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Logic???

      If X = Y then you have it.

      Just change the meaning of some words.

      b

      Delete
    2. Similarly, the left laughs at Sarah Palin's 'death panel' reference, but that is exactly what the IPAB is.

      You've got that right.

      While Rufus accuses the Republicans of wanting to bump people off.

      This country is becoming really, really sick.

      b

      Delete
    3. .

      If X = Y then you have it.

      Just change the meaning of some words



      Don't be obtuse Bob. Try reading the dissent. It's based more on ideology than the law.

      Roberts got it right.

      .

      Delete
  14. Let's cut to the chase. The ACA is going to insure a Lot of people, and it's going to cost the Republicans some money. Stop.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Republicans wanted that money spent on more Wars in the Middle East (it would have made their shares in General Dynamics, and Exxon go up.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What horse shit. Damn near every democrat in Congress voted to give Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. Go back and pull up all the youtubes showing them all making statements about WMD and Saddam, all the way to Ozone Al Gore too.

      b

      Delete
    2. Republicans Voted For the War Resolution 215 - 6.


      Democrats Voted NO by 126 - 82.


      That's 93% Republican Approval

      And, 39% Dem Approval.

      Delete
  16. My wife's contribution this morning is she's so sick of hearing of all things Obama she wants to know if she can petition the Death Panels for early consideration.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  17. And Deuce is right. This is going to cost the working young big time.

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So does auto insurance, but we make them carry it, anyway.

      Delete
    2. Entirely different subject as even you are smart enough to realize.


      Fails -

      Solar Trust of America: FAIL
      Bright Source: FAIL
      Solyndra: FAIL
      LSP Energy: FAIL
      Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL
      Abound Solar: FAIL
      SunPower: FAIL
      Beacon Power: FAIL
      Ecotality: FAIL
      A123 Solar: FAIL
      UniSolar: FAIL
      Azure Dynamics: FAIL
      Evergreen Solar: FAIL
      Ener1: FAIL

      Dopenstrange on June 29, 2012 at 11:28 AM

      b

      Delete
  18. The democrats want to kill old people, and are going to do it, too.


    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rufus is a democrat.

      b

      Delete
    2. It was the Dems that passed Medicare. How is That trying to kill old people?

      The Dems passed Social Security; how is That trying to kill old people?

      Obamacare shrinks the "donut hole" in the Prescription Drug Bill; How is That trying to kill old people?

      Delete
  19. Rufus wants to kill old people.

    This is the way you argue, Rufus.

    I'm signing out till the topic changes.

    But the young working are going to really end up paying, big time.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  20. No, the "Young" will not "Pay big time".

    They will game the system.

    The maximum penalty for not having bought medical insurance s 2.5% of adjusted income after 2016.

    The "young" will pay that penalty and remain uninsured until they become ill. Then they will buy the insurance and receive full medical treatment, with no lifetime limits or preexisting condition opt outs for the insurance companies.

    2.5% of income, that is not paying "Big Time".

    ReplyDelete
  21. As to the assertion that the "Standard of Living" in the US has decreased 25% under the Obama administration ...

    That is laughable.

    The Dow average is soaring.
    Over 4 million jobs were created in the last 28 months.

    GDP growth, even at an anemic 1.9% makes the EU envious, while giving lie to the idea that the US is in decline.

    Could the US do better?

    Of course.

    But not as long as the current political parties are entrenched in power.
    Team Bush, Justices Souter and Roberts personify the GOP.
    Mr Obama and Ms Pelosi, the Dems.

    All are on the same Yale/Harvard alumni rowing team.

    Gary Johnson is the alternative, but the powers that be will not even let him on the stage.

    Fancy that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. My issue is more of process than the merits of the healthcare bill. (I don’t know enough about the bill and neither does anyone else.) From past experience, it was written by and for big corporations and those that wrote it and supported it will be richly rewarded.

    You and I on the other hand will not.

    If the elected majority wants to pass legislation that is constitutional, then the opposing response is an election on a state or federal level, not the arbitrary whim of one epileptic who may be under the influence of.

    The real menace is Washington, Inc.This should be should be a state issue. A well placed meteorite would suit me just fine.

    ReplyDelete
  23. While Team Bush spent well over a trillion dollars on their Mid-East adventure.

    Which has turned out to be a failure, especially in Iraq.

    The failed Obama efforts at "Green Development" pale in comparison to the cost of the waste, in both dollars and more importantly lives, in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do this about once a year but

      A-fucking-men.

      Delete
    2. Not only that, but if you go here you will see the 10th or 11th largest economy on earth obtaining, on average, 15% of its electricity from Renewables (and, that doesn't even count Large Hydro.)

      That hardly looks like "failed" green policies to me.

      CaISO

      Delete
  24. Vote Count in support of the Social Security Act of 1935:

    House Dems: 95%
    House Repubs: 84%

    Senate Dems: 98%
    Senate Repubs: 76%

    Granted the Dems had what I believe is called Super Majorities in both the House and Senate, but SS, at the time of its inception, received broad support from both parties. It is also revealing to read the historical record created by supporters of the legislation. It is passionate and positive. The record exists in stark contrast to the pseudo-intellectual phlegm produced by modern writers like Michael Savage and Daren Jonescu.

    The point being, times have changed.

    .....

    Why Markets Are Going Crazy Over What Europe Did

    What happened to Armageddon?

    Another dead parrot for the blog space.

    ReplyDelete
  25. He’s not dead. He’s stunned.

    ReplyDelete
  26. And Australia March quarter GDP +1.3% over December '11 quarter.

    March quarter inflation rate +1.6%. Down from December '11 quarter of +3.1%.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I am going home to have an adult beverage with my bride. Y'all have a great weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I imagine the dissenters either had Roberts's vote or that Roberts left the post argument conference without commiting to a side and saying something to the effect of "let me see how it writes." He certainly didn't trust the dissenters, as he clearly instructed his law clerks to begin working on an alternative majority opinion (the final product was too polished and too long to have been written at the last minute). And he waited to see what was written.

    What was written was not measured judicial analysis, but rather an opinion that started with a goal --- throw the bill out --- and then figured out how to get there, blowing by any precedent in its path. The challengers were right in one respect, in that the mandate was a unique use of federal power that had not been considered by the Supreme Court. But severability had been considered by the Court literally dozens of times, and the four dissenters charged right by what those decisions had said.

    So Roberts was left with a choice: engage in the severability analysis himself (a messy task indeed) or find some other way to uphold the bill. He chose the latter, and the result is what we have today.

    LINK

    Pardon my French, but those dumb fucks.

    I agree with Quirk that the ruling was proper and the dissent was raw ideology - in black robes this time, not jack boots. (I am ambivalent about the policy but I'm not in the mood to pursue that argument.)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Would it be possible to craft a much simpler, cost effective solution? Well, yeaahh.

    But, would the Republicans do it? Of course not.

    So, this is what we gots.

    Max was right a couple of threads back, I think it was. This is the "starting" point. They'll be working on this deal for years. But, at least they've started.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moron! Then see the post I put up concerning the proposals of DOCTOR Whathisname from Georgia, a RUPUBLICAN, above. Or maybe last post.

      You live in a Mississippi cocoon of your own making.

      b

      Delete
    2. Doc might know a thing or two, unlike your honored self.

      At least, he ain't trying to bump off the old.

      b

      Delete
    3. Referencing this --


      But, would the Republicans do it? Of course not.


      b

      Delete
    4. Cain't even read the Georgia newspapers.

      b

      Delete
  30. My favorite is No. 9 with Affordable Care Cat running within a whisker of second place.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Can you make up a cartoon of my wife saying:

    "I am so tired of all things Obama, can I apply for early consideration by the Death Panels?"

    b

    ReplyDelete
  32. Note of clarification re IPAB, Palin, and "death panels"

    Palin's coining of the term "death panels" was in reference to Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options.

    Also:

    Due to public concern, the provision was removed from the Senate bill and was not included in the law that was enacted, the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In a 2011 statement, the American Society of Clinical Oncology bemoaned the politicization of the issue and said that the proposal should be revisited.

    The rhetorical gem was then attached to IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board.)

    What is IPAB? From Orszag:

    The new institution with the most potential by far, however, is the Independent Payment Advisory Board. President Obama fought hard for IPAB, over strong opposition from Congress, which saw the board as usurping its power. When IPAB starts up in 2014, it will comprise an independent panel of medical experts charged with devising changes to Medicare’s payment system. In each year that Medicare’s per capita costs exceed a certain threshold, IPAB will be responsible for making proposals to reduce this projected cost growth to the specified threshold. The policies will then take effect automatically unless Congress specifically passes legislation blocking them and the president signs that legislation. In other words, the default is that policies to constrain cost growth and improve quality will take effect.

    To paraphrase the good doctor on Squawk Box this week, end-of-life care and treatment is the largest health care cost component, and yet we are not allowed to even have a rational discussion.

    From wiki:

    Atul Gawande, a physician who writes on health care topics for The New Yorker, said "that the whole death panel reduction and reaction to it" temporarily "shut down our ability to even have a national discussion about how to have the right [end-of-life] conversation" between doctors and patients.[96]

    When investigating for his article "Letting Go", Gawande was asked to refrain from writing about palliative care by physicians who were concerned the article might be manipulated to create another political controversy—and as a result, hurt their profession.[97][98] Professor Harold Pollack wrote that given the "anxieties captured in the crystalline phrase 'death panel,' I would not commence a national cost-control discussion within the frightening and divisive arena of end-of-life care."[99]

    Bishop et al. were fearful of how their publication[100] on CPR/DNR would be received by the medical and bioethics communities. They were concerned because in "the era of rhetoric centered on fictional 'death panels' " their paper addressed "the quest for immortality implicit in US culture, a culture of 'life-at-all costs' that medical technology has advanced".[101] Bishop et al. interpreted cautioning comments from their peers[102] as a suggestion "that land mines of 'death panels' await us".[101]

    PolitiFact gave Palin's claim its lowest rating—"Pants on Fire!"—on August 10[2] and on December 19 it was named "Lie of the Year" for 2009.[15][103][104] "Death panel" was named the most outrageous term of 2009 by the American Dialect Society.[105] The definition was given as "A supposed committee of doctors and/or bureaucrats who would decide which patients were allowed to receive treatment, ostensibly leaving the rest to die".[106][105] FactCheck called it one of the "whoppers" of 2009.[107]

    ReplyDelete