This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Cashin On The Constitution And Obamacare

Tyler Durden's picture




 

UBS' Art Cashin had originally intended to explore the scholarly give and take of both the opinion and of the dissent. Both have marvelous allusions to things like the Federalist papers and “original intent”. As he notes "a full reading is like a visit to the mind gym, a mental workout of the first order."

Art Cashin, UBS:

We were also hoping to revisit the original Marbury vs. Madison decision, which we write about every February 24th on its anniversary. (Justice Marshall did not recuse himself even though it was his failure as acting Secretary of State that set up the case.)

We had intended to write on the nuances of conflict around the rulings. The fact that the dissent was unsigned (a sign of disrespect for the opinion?). The fact that Thomas put in an additional separate dissent. The fact that Ginsberg refers to the multiple dissent as “the opinion” (was Roberts aboard when she wrote it?).

I was also going to explore the theory of many that Roberts was playing chess while the others were playing checkers. That, in the fashion of Marbury vs. Madison, he gave the President a favorable ruling, replete with handcuffs and a straight jacket.

The more I read the dissent, however, the more I saw the minority’s very evident concern that the Constitutions was being weakened. Here is the rather blistering conclusion of the dissent:

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available. The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.

 

The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union.

 

Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary. The values that should have determined our course to- day are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn.

 

In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.

 

The Constitution, though it dates from the founding of the Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens. It should be the responsibility of the Court to teach otherwise, to remind our people that the Framers considered structural protections of freedom the most important ones, for which reason they alone were embodied in the original Constitution and not left to later amendment. The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.

Wow! I encourage one and all to read both the Opinion and the Dissent. It is important to all of us. It will make my July 4th a very thoughtful one.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 07/03/2012 - 13:58 | 2584603 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

This monster Obamacare must be killed.  What a travesty.

If that means Mitt, then I'm all for it.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:00 | 2584614 kralizec
kralizec's picture

Whatever it takes.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:26 | 2584732 mikla
mikla's picture

This is a misunderstanding.

These un-elected "philosopher-kings" do not have this authority.

They write an "opinion".  It is only "binding" (at some level) because people believe it.

No, in reality, it shall be rejected.

The public is defrauded, and these ranting-central-planners in some far-away-land will be demonstrated to be increasingly irrelevant.

History is replete with public rejection of their oppressive-super-structure, and "leaders" that usurp far beyond that authority which is granted.  The USA has a long history of civil disobedience.

We will see a much richer form of that history in the immediate future.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:57 | 2584847 10mm
10mm's picture

"We will see a much richer form of that history in the immediate future".Really,what form will that come in?Im banking on "NOTHING" as a form from the sleepy,dumb downed,talk bullshit sheeple.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:10 | 2584877 mikla
mikla's picture

If you believe you are paralyzed, then you are.

Agreed, it is a shame so many people want to give away all self-determination, self-authority, and self-respect.  They live in Detroit, Michigan.  They will happily march into the ovens.

However, most people will go about their lives without respecting nor granting deference to self-proclaimed central authorities in a far-away land.  If they want to see a doctor, they will go down the street and see one that does not subscribe to the bureaucratic nightmare.

In this sense, the imminent Sovereign (financial) default is merely a side-effect of political reality when people realize their (Federal) government serves no purpose.  (People will stop paying Federal taxes.)

"Hyperinflation" is the symptom for a lack-of-confidence in the monetary unit.  "Federal Government Collapse" is merely a side-effect when the States realize it does not serve them, and that also is imminent.

It is the same as the EMU:  Greece is only in the Euro because (at the moment) they think there is advantage to membership.  The moment it concludes the advantage does not exist, Greece is gone.

Ooops, I meant to say, "Germany".  ;-)

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:34 | 2584970 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

Americans pay same rate of taxes as in Europe and THEY DON'T GET SHIT.

 

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:15 | 2585074 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

You can drive a stake through the heart of Obamacare, but you will never undo the vast expansion of Federal power to compel you to do anything they wish you to do. Roberts is a statist through and through.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:30 | 2585121 pods
pods's picture

That will be the thing still argued 30 years from now, if the government still runs things.

People bitch about the little thing, not the precedent and the flood gates opened.

Remember the little case over a wheat farmer and "interstate commerce?"

We barely squeaked by on that one this time.  Instead of further mutilating that fucked up clause, they instead opened another Pandora's box!

And now this case will be fodder for another round of mental masturbation between two pre-selected statists wanting to do more for you.

pods

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:47 | 2585591 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

In 30 years, the US will be nothing but a bitter memory in the minds of the few survivors huddling around the poles.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 20:32 | 2585668 ndotken
ndotken's picture

Anyone who expected the Supreme Court to declare the Obamacare mandated purchase of insurance law as unconstitutional knows absolutely nothing about the history of the court.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:26 | 2585436 GernB
GernB's picture

That is my concern as well. As far as I can tell there is nothing government can't make you do through it's taxing power now. If the federal government can make you do anything then you are not free. It is simply a myth that the US is the "land of the free," we are only as free as the majority lets us be, and they have proven to be willing to sacrafice other people's freedom for the promise of freebes from the government.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 20:11 | 2585640 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

Seems like you're beinga bit a an Alarmist!  LOL  Anyway, consider this, statism didn't arise just now.  Its incremental and must be fought incrementally.  Start with a red state senate and presidency- repeal obamacare, block grand medicaid, and privatize medicare via vouchers.  Think of how much better off we would be in terms of deficits if people had fought against Medicare and Medicaid 35 years ago during the LBJ era.  There would currently be no fiscal deficits and the debt would be non-existent.  Not to mention the fact that medcal care would be a fraction of its current costs, people would have incentizes to stay healthy via  regular exercise and proper nutrition.  There's nothing so effective to bring down the costs of anything like having to pay with your own money.  Its always other people's money and the notion of entitlement which gets humans in such trouble.   

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 22:32 | 2585845 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Two practical steps:

1. Cut off cable service, eliminate TV

2. Trade some paper dollars for some gold and silver

Two small, but tangible steps that every American can take to fight back.  It adds up quickly.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:40 | 2584786 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

All you have to do is convert to Islam, say you now follow 'Sharia Law' & are now, therefore, EXEMPT from participating in the form of gambling (which health insurance represents, mandated or not)...

No biggie... Allah be praised!... (Don't worry ~ it's all a 'Duke Brothers' inspired $1 bet between God & Allah to see what those crazy humans would do)...

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:43 | 2584987 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Just don't ever renounce your Islamic faith, as no doubt the supreme court will soon instate an 'apostate' tax too.

And do you know what penalty Islam subjects its apostates to?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:16 | 2585076 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

Don't tell that to Big O.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:21 | 2585098 Stoploss
Stoploss's picture

That's probably the plan, but we'll have to wait for the TV ads when the new reality shows kick off.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:33 | 2585130 Azannoth
Azannoth's picture

As an Atheist I would have no problem accepting a bogus faith for the purpose of tax-evasion, too bad I don't have that option in Europe here it's the opposite if you're religious you get to pay church taxes(sic.) on top

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:56 | 2584846 SourNStout
SourNStout's picture

Romney-Care was the basis for Obama-care.

 

Mitt will solve nothing...He'll continue the expansion of govenment, while saying he'll decerease it. 

Politicians = Liars & Crooks 

How are memories so short! Obama lied to everyone to get elected...Mitt will continue his lies to get elected. 

The system is corrupted. Nothing will change...the top 10% will win continue its wealth gain. Middle class will be squezzed. 

Audit, Expose it, End it

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:17 | 2585078 Azannoth
Azannoth's picture

Yes and here are your options

1) If you're flat broke. The law stipulates that anyone whose income falls below 133% of the federal government's decreed 'poverty line' can receive taxpayer and Chinese-funded Medicaid.

2) If you're religion disallows it. There are a few recognized religions out there which are adamantly opposed to medical care. As such, people of these faiths are exempt from the individual mandate to buy healthcare coverage.

3) If you're incarcerated. That's right. If you're serving prison time, you are also exempt from the individual mandate.

Ironically, this means that convicted felons will have at least one freedom that the rest of the sheeple wandering around on the streets don't have.

Oh, there's actually one more exemption--

4) Expats. The law exempts any US citizen or resident alien who is not "lawfully present in the United States."

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:05 | 2585247 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

re #4, that is the exemptiion for illegal aliens ... expats are exempted a bit farther down innt the bill.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:53 | 2585356 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

"2) If you're religion disallows it. There are a few recognized religions out there which are adamantly opposed to medical care. As such, people of these faiths are exempt from the individual mandate to buy healthcare coverage."

Anybody know which religions specifically?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:31 | 2585558 TAfool
TAfool's picture

Old Order Amish are exempt

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:01 | 2584615 camaro68ss
camaro68ss's picture

Supreme court ruled it relies on a tax for implementation, making it now a tax. According to the United States Constitution, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This law originated in the Senate, it is now unconstitutional null and void bitchez!

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:04 | 2584637 Comay Mierda
Comay Mierda's picture

i think there is a re-education camp for you

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:09 | 2584654 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

I agree it's null and void.

But no one in power cares.....

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:13 | 2584677 newworldorder
newworldorder's picture

You may be right, -but .....

Since rule of law no longer matters today, why should Congress follow the Constitution.  As long as the citizens do not object who are we at ZH to complain?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:18 | 2584713 Michael
Michael's picture

I'm voting for Obama.

The republicans under Bush got 8 years to rape, pillage, plunder, and enslave the taxpayer citizens.

Obama and the democrats will get their 8 year turn to complete the project. Tuff shit.

You better start focusing on the congress critters you need to throw out in the primaries and general election in November, and vote out at least 95% of them, and put in Liberty candidates.

Otherwise, well there is no otherwise anymore. The complete and total USA economic collapse is a 100% mathematical certainty. Too bad. Picking up the pieces will be difficult.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:25 | 2584737 MFL8240
MFL8240's picture

All the people with green hair will vote for Obama.  No surprise!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:38 | 2584788 FL_Conservative
FL_Conservative's picture

Yep.  Green hair and shit for brains!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:19 | 2584919 mr_T
mr_T's picture

Hahaha you still believe that two parties exist..

Mitt & Obama are from the same club.

1st time ever I do not vote..

My vote is.. I VOTE NONE OF THE ABOVE!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:52 | 2585008 Cruel Aid
Cruel Aid's picture

You have to vote.

Write in Daffy Duck and make a statement.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:15 | 2585075 FL_Conservative
FL_Conservative's picture

It has nothing to do with the 2 party system.  Unfortunately, there is not a currently viable Ron Paul alternative.  All that will do is put the Marxist back into office.  I'll take my chances with Romney and just make sure my Congressman's and Senator's offices know me on a first name basis.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:50 | 2585206 Michael
Michael's picture

What this country needs is a bigger enema. You get that no matter who you choose. I choose the D brand in the Whitehouse this time around.

Foe everything else, there's incumbent congress critter demise.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:03 | 2585240 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

FL_Conservative said:

I'll take my chances with Romney

All that will do is put the Marxist back into office.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:30 | 2585551 FL_Conservative
FL_Conservative's picture

That's a remark I'd expect from a STOOGE.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:48 | 2584817 Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano's picture

We would likely agree over the patheticly little difference between Obama and Romney, but guessing which one is closer to Liberty it seems Romney might have the edge over the BHO.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:38 | 2584977 ImnotPOTUS
ImnotPOTUS's picture

Only because, he is not in the drivers seat. Would make the same call in regard to BHO and McCainey last time?

Two sides of the same coin, don't throw away your vote, give it to the Libertarian at least this time. It won't make a difference this time, but you never know.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:07 | 2585050 FL_Conservative
FL_Conservative's picture

I now know from experience of the tyranny that I will live through under Obama.  I'd rather take my chances that Romney will be better and complain like hell if he tries to do something I don't agree with.  Voting for "NONE" is NOT an option for those that give a shit what happens to this country. Maybe at some point enough people will realize that we need a "Ron Paul" type of President to get this country back to the Constitution, but they aren't there right now. Maybe in 4 years they will be.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:36 | 2585147 pods
pods's picture

I cannot believe you got three upvotes for that.

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:22 | 2585287 Bollixed
Bollixed's picture

I can't believe people still think there is a legitimate counting of the votes in the 'election'.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:31 | 2585557 FL_Conservative
FL_Conservative's picture

I can't believe your mom let you use her computer.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 21:20 | 2585737 pods
pods's picture

And a stunning retort.

:)

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 22:00 | 2585794 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

pods said:

And a stunning retort.

...the bipartisan believing brilliance of two-party trutherism.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:05 | 2585246 bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

You're an idiot. No shit. You're living under tyranny under Obama? And then you're going to complain like hell whe Romney fucks everything up like your hero Bush did? Yeah, that's working really well for you now, isn't it?

Good grief. How do you manage to eat your food without coaching?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:26 | 2585289 akak
akak's picture

Bonoxious back at it again!

You are, of course (and no surprise), just another deluded adherent of the government and mass media-inculcated, pro-Establishment programming that would have you believe that one of the two equally corrupt and statist teams is better than the other.  In reality, it is just a bad cop/bad cop setup.

We did live under tyranny under Bush, we do live under tyranny under Obama, and we will live under tyranny under the Romnoid.  Because each of them, after all, are from the same ONE party of control, the Oligarchic Status-Quo Party.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:36 | 2585315 bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

You gotta admit, the shot was there. Somebody had to take it.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:38 | 2585569 FL_Conservative
FL_Conservative's picture

So exactly HOW are you going to waste your vote, dumbass?  You are at least 18, aren't you?  It's hard to tell based on the lack of logic in your posts.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 22:04 | 2585803 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

FL_Conservative asked:

So exactly HOW are you going to waste your vote, dumbass?

There are only two ways for him to do that: voting for Obama or Romney.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:47 | 2585590 BeetleBailey
BeetleBailey's picture

Jesus fucking CHRIST! Another Bush retort. Bush is gone - get over it.

Sounds like you're an Obama pickle sucker. In that case, fuck right off.

In time, you asshats will be exposed for the total fucking rubes you truly are - plumping for a fucking serial lying piece of dried up dog shit.

Obama is a cunt. Romney may be a cunt as well, but at LEAST we know a shitload more about him than Barry OFuckin Choom wagon. Think O'Cunt would have been elected with the knowledge that he choomed around Oahu smoking shit?

One more reason the "main stream media" is lousy with biased fuckheads and stupid maroons.

The shit that he's gotten away with is historic. The fucker ought to be locked up in prison - along with a BUNCH of his henchmen - Kathleen Fucking Sebillius too.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:08 | 2585252 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Bob Sacamano said:

We would likely agree over the patheticly little difference between Obama and Romney, but guessing which one is closer to Liberty it seems Romney might have the edge over the BHO.

The difference, if any, is so insignificant as to be dwarfed even by rounding error. A perfect analogy would to place both of them on a stage at a debate and then argue about which one is closer to the sun.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 20:53 | 2585702 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

I think nearly everyone agrees that Bush was a traitor to capitalism and a warmonger-an embarrassment to those who voted for him  regret strongly.  Bailing out GM, AIG, the banks and TARP will live in infamy.  The Patriot act was/is a disgrace requiring repeal and elimnation of the TSA.  Only Ron Paul is consistent on these issues of liberty and free markets. 

However, the question to ask is who is more likely to sign a Paul Ryan/Rand Paul budget such as passed earlier this year in the house into law?  Who is more likely to repeal Obamacare?  These are small but important steps.    So, I've got to go with Romney on this one.  But unlike Ron Paul, I won't be donating or helping his campaign.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:20 | 2584920 clagr
clagr's picture

I would gladly take 8 more years of Bush (where we all made more money!!) than another year of the destruction of Obama.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:20 | 2584921 clagr
clagr's picture

I would gladly take 8 more years of Bush (where we all made more money!!) than another year of the destruction of Obama.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:07 | 2585250 bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

You made money where? During the two stock market crashes during Bush's terms, a first for any president?

The markets are doing much better since Obama got in, but you'd have to be able to read the most basic stock chart to get it, and that's apparently too much of a stretch for you.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:29 | 2585440 Jake88
Jake88's picture

you make no sense

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:20 | 2584715 Tsunami Wave
Tsunami Wave's picture

But.. but... Hey, according to Ezra Klein, Obamacare is not the largest tax increase in the history of the world with his one chart:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/02/no-obamacar...

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:27 | 2584748 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

At least when I pay taxes, I get some kind of benefit as a result (not much, but something: UE, rebates, even the City of Boston used the stimulus to buy its residents a rodent-resistent barrel for each residence, and has cut the rat population in the cut by 55%).

I'm not sure you can call ObamaCare a tax; it's more of a "cover charge" like at a club.  And unlike that cover charge, I'm forced to pay it (by indirect gunpoint).

I've lived under Heritage/RomneyCare in MA for 4 years now, and all I've gotten is higher insurance premiums and medical bills!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:05 | 2585032 Tsunami Wave
Tsunami Wave's picture

So with your logic, taxes should be raised to 100% so I can see as many benefits as possible!

I should also try to not remember that there is such a thing as corruption -- that legislators, governors & the president, and beuarocrats try to take as much taxpayer money.. oops, I mean government revenue, as they legally or illegaly can, so they can enrich themselves and their friends.  This also includes starting nonsensical government programmes and long beurocracies.

And Obamacare is essentially a penalty disguised as a tax and not a "cover charge." Now this I don't understand... but weirdly it has nothing to do with the commerce clause, like paying tax for having police or firefighting services in your town, or being able to drive on the interstate system.. or whatever.

If I had to choose between higher insurance premiums without Obamacare and with Obamacare.. to keep it simple, i would choose without Obamacare.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:16 | 2585079 Republi-Ken
Republi-Ken's picture

Nowhere do I read any witism from the "Great Fat Triple Chin" Cashin about...

HUMAN BEING'S LIVES...DUH!

To 30 Million people, real fucking persons, Obamacare is a Life And Death Issue.

And to the 85% of Americans who buy Health Insurance, it is not a Mandate, cuz they already buy in,

but it is a Financial Life And Death Issue.

Pre-Existing Conditions, for even Fat Boy Art, can bankrupt an entire Family's Dreams and Future.

But Art wouldn't really care about that, would he.

Nawwwww. Conservatives don't care about people.

Art cares about fucking capitalistic philosphy and high-falutin' bullshit that does not really matter.

Life And Death matters. Really.

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:24 | 2584735 Chump
Chump's picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Senate

The Senate failed to take up debate on the House bill and instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[162] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[163] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[164] The bill as amended incorporated elements of earlier proposals that had been reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.

Doesn't make it right, but that's how they did it.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:55 | 2584824 El Oregonian
El Oregonian's picture

"The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill"

OK, then let's pull up the next bill, completely "Revise" the content of it, to say that we're going to hang those bastards and bastard-ettes from a near by tree, and "Deem" it righteous justice...

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:17 | 2584909 Chump
Chump's picture

No problem by me.  Hoisted by their own petard, or something.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:06 | 2585083 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

The Senate used a stripped down bill from the House as a vehicle to originate this, so your legal reasoning is quaint but misguided.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:08 | 2584650 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Mitt? Mitt has no intention of dethroning ObamaCare.  But he will say anything to be elected. Have you learned nothing?

 

This monster Obamacare must be killed.  What a travesty.

If that means Mitt, then I'm all for it.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:44 | 2584805 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

I'm calling bs.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:15 | 2584692 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Mitt is the grandfather of Obamacare.

You really expect a doting grampa to kill his grandchild?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:36 | 2584780 Chump
Chump's picture

He also signed a real, actual gun ban as governor of MA.  True story.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:01 | 2584854 10mm
10mm's picture

+1 Chump.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:16 | 2584906 pods
pods's picture

Not sure why the downvote, what you stated was a mere fact.

Romney passed, at the state level, an AWB, stating:

 "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense," the Globe quoted Romney as saying. "They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

How is this difficult to see that this guy has no problem overstepping the boundaries imposed on him.

Romney=Epic Fail


Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:27 | 2584949 Chump
Chump's picture

The downvote is from someone thinking along these lines:

"Obama is anti-gun, so he's bad, and we have to get him out of office.  Romney is from the other team, so he's good.  This guy Chump just pointed out that Romney signed a permanent ban on assault weapons as governor of Massachusetts, and a gun ban is bad, so he's saying Romney is bad, so I will junk his comment."

See?  Makes perfect sense, and clearly illustrates why America is the greatest, freest, richest, most awesomest country in history.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:40 | 2584784 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

+infinity

Do you know how many Capital Grille and Morton Steak dinners big insurance companies (most based out of MA or Hartford, CT) spent on Mitt to make sure he kept his end of the bargain (with indirect blackmail also thrown in there)?  And, when he got into power, to expand it?

Romneycare actually has WORSE provisions than Obamacare like for example: An employer can wait 6 months until offering health insurance to new hires.  I can see 1-3, but 6?  And guess who has to pay for that "insurance" that's required for every citizen to have (even though they don't; that's why I always laugh at my liberal friends claiming MA has "universal Health Care" - we don't.  Over 250K people in the state don't have insurance)?

There is no way he'll defy his masters; not only is he paid NOT to do so, it's in his DNA to be a corporate dick fluffer.  That's how this unappealing, stuck up, opulent, flip flopping religious winner of the DNA lottery was successful in politics in the 1st place.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:45 | 2584809 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Do you think Mitt is a stooge? I was thinking he was one of the masters. Sometimes it is hard to tell with the Presidents if they are a stooge or a real life master.

Reagan - Converted Stooge?

George HW Bush - Master?

Clinton - Stooge

Jr - Stooge?

Obama - Stooge

Romney - Master?

I really think HW was a real master but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they are all stooges.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:03 | 2584859 El Oregonian
El Oregonian's picture

Don't forget... Regardless of either Stooge or Master, they were all "Bought" and paid for...

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:14 | 2585269 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

tarsubil said:

Do you think Mitt is a stooge? I was thinking he was one of the masters. Sometimes it is hard to tell with the Presidents if they are a stooge or a real life master.

None of them are masters. How does a marionette pull its own strings?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 21:01 | 2585713 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

Mitt is interested in the only thing most people (notice I didn't restrict it to politicians) care about- his career.  So, yes, he would certainly sign a bill to repeal it such as will be passed in the house in July with a probability of 100%.  Cause that's in his current best interests.  if you want to predict a human's behavior, just, "follow the money".  So, I have no doubt he would sign a repeal.   

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:18 | 2584712 Chump
Chump's picture

Still not a reason to vote for Mitt.  He has no power to "repeal" anything.  And especially not on "Day 1" or whatever nonsense he's selling now.  All he can do is hope for a majority in both Houses that passes legislation that specifically repeals Obamacare (a feat in its own right) so he can sign it.  That's it.  And then it will likely have to pass Constitutional muster given the controversy surrounding it.

Please, someone give me a reason to vote for Romney that isn't centered around the fact that Obama sucks something awful.  Please.  I want to be convinced.  I just can't stomach the thought of voting for who's "less shitty" YET AGAIN, especially since both of these candidates are so damn shitty.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:56 | 2584842 r00t61
r00t61's picture

Maybe he plays golf better than Obama.  Or something.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:05 | 2584862 akak
akak's picture

Ooh, Romney just looks so presidential!

What perfect hair!

And he has such a nice-looking family!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:21 | 2585099 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

and he's whi... never mind!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:41 | 2585171 akak
akak's picture

Well, a very pale shade of plastic, anyway.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:35 | 2585313 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Chump said:

Please, someone give me a reason to vote for Romney that isn't centered around the fact that Obama sucks something awful.  Please.  I want to be convinced.

Everyone should vote for Willard "The Rat" Romney because he recently used campaign funds to purchase a lifetime NRA membership. (He would have done it sooner, but he's just been so gosh darn busy.)

Obama wants to ban guns for teh commonism, terrism, and water fluoridationism. When Romney bans guns, he'll be banning them for freedom and liberty and the constitution!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:56 | 2585362 Whiner
Whiner's picture

Um...well, howsis: Mitty likes to downsize fat companies (forget that he was Guv in super-lib State that wanted uni-healthcare; that's what they do there) so he will apply GAAP accounting to USSA balance sheet and insist on cutting the shit out of budget firing many parasites as a legacy. The guy is smart ( No. 1pm his class at POS Law school) and can be heroic ( shut down Bain sending all employees to look fo kidnapped daughter of Bain manager-found her). Feel better? Not much? Me neither. At least he doesn't hate his own country, repeatedly crotch saluting the flag and bowing to Saudi Kings and communist Chinese leader. He will ask if The Queen would kindly send back the bust of Winnie Churchill Obammy crated off first day in WH. Feel better yet? Then think of Obammies' message caught on hot-mike to Putin," Tell him I will have more flexibility after election." Premier, grasping his arm: "We stand with you. I will tell Demitri!" WTF other national issues will he exercise greater flexibility on? We ZHers do not want the system to come down: not good for very young and old. May open door for Fourth Reich. Oh yeah, Uncle Mitty has valid SS and Draft card and is a "Natural Born" citizen as required by The Constitution. Feel better yet? Me neither, but I will vote for the Mormon over the Muslim, Barack Barry Hussein Sotero Obammy. It's like picking the prettier of two whores to marry. Vote Romney. Bullish!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:39 | 2585574 Whiner
Whiner's picture

Um...well, howsis: Mitty likes to downsize fat companies (forget that he was Guv in super-lib State that wanted uni-healthcare; that's what they do there) so he will apply GAAP accounting to USSA balance sheet and insist on cutting the shit out of budget firing many parasites as a legacy. The guy is smart ( No. 1pm his class at POS Law school) and can be heroic ( shut down Bain sending all employees to look fo kidnapped daughter of Bain manager-found her). Feel better? Not much? Me neither. At least he doesn't hate his own country, repeatedly crotch saluting the flag and bowing to Saudi Kings and communist Chinese leader. He will ask if The Queen would kindly send back the bust of Winnie Churchill Obammy crated off first day in WH. Feel better yet? Then think of Obammies' message caught on hot-mike to Putin," Tell him I will have more flexibility after election." Premier, grasping his arm: "We stand with you. I will tell Demitri!" WTF other national issues will he exercise greater flexibility on? We ZHers do not want the system to come down: not good for very young and old. May open door for Fourth Reich. Oh yeah, Uncle Mitty has valid SS and Draft card and is a "Natural Born" citizen as required by The Constitution. Feel better yet? Me neither, but I will vote for the Mormon over the Muslim, Barack Barry Hussein Sotero Obammy. It's like picking the prettier of two whores to marry. Vote Romney. Bullish!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 20:53 | 2585701 King_Julian
King_Julian's picture

The main reason to vote for Mitt is because he represents the very last shot we have at averting armed conflict and revolution. We still may not even then. All I know is I have to be able to look the next generation in the eye and say we did the best we could to fix it without blood. If not, then c'est la guerre. In that case there won't be a vote like this for a while. I will vote for Mitt and try to keep his nuts squeezed. I will also prepare for war. I don't plan on surviving that. I believe in freedom so what is the alternative? If it comes to that, go long trees, lead and rope. It will be a fight to remember. So Romney gets a shot and pass the ammunition...

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 23:06 | 2585899 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

King_Julian said:

The main reason to vote for Mitt is because he represents the very last shot we have at averting armed conflict

Seriously? Romney is chomping at the bit to do the bidding of Netanyahu and send the kids of people he'll never know to incinerate brown people in Iran.

Do you really want neocon poltroons like John Bolton driving foreign policy from cabinet level positions? Do you honestly believe that appointing a war image masturbator and Likud fellator like Joe Lieberman as Secretary of State will make the world more peaceful for anyone? I mean, for crying out loud, Hillary is bad enough as it is.

All we know about Obama is that he hasn't yet started the third world war. Romney's future cabinet has already scheduled the resumption of large scale body burning for late January.

I believe in freedom so what is the alternative?

The alternative is not giving your endorsement and approval to the destruction of freedom. The very act of voting for a candidate is an active bestowal of your endorsement and approval. When you vote for the lesser of evils, you are voting for evil.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:29 | 2584752 sosoome
sosoome's picture

All well and good, but killing OBarryCare does nothing about the abominable precedents established by the court's ruling.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:13 | 2585067 Republi-Ken
Republi-Ken's picture

No where do I read any witisms from the "Great Fat Triple Chin" Cashin about HUMAN BEING'S LIVES...

DUH!

To 30 Million people, real fucking persons, Obamacare is a Life And Death Issue.

And to the 85% of Americans who buy Health Insurance, it is not a Mandate, cuz they already buy in,

but it is a Financial Life And Death Issue.

Pre-Exisiting Conditions, for even Fat Boy Art, can bankrupt an entire Family's Dreams and Future.

But Art wouldn't really care about that, would he.

Nawwwww. Conservatives don't care about people.

Art cares about fucking capitalistic philosphy and high-falutin' bullshit that does not really matter.

Life And Death matters.

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 21:16 | 2585729 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

Death is inevitable.  (you know that "on a long enough timeline ..." thingy that's the truism of this site)  If you're silly enough to believe "health care" will prevent death you've got mush for brains.  Health is all about proper sanitation, genetics, and mostly lifestyle.  Modern medicine is mostly devoted to how to sucker people like you with unnecessary drugs, proceedures and surguries.  I'll tell you from an insider's view- its one huge racket.  We could take all the funds now wasted on health insurance and pay people to walk a mile a day or bike 5-10 miles.  The net health of the nation would increase immensely but there would be a lot of unnecessary health care "workers".   

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:24 | 2585295 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

DoChenRollingBearing said:

This monster Obamacare must be killed.  What a travesty.

If that means Mitt, then I'm all for it.

That's not what it means.

Willard "The Rat" Romney will treat Obamacare like a gardener treats a fine shrubbery. He'll feed it regularly and, to improve its growth and vigor, give it an occasional trim with the pruning shears.

The pruning will be magnified and the media will make it their big story du jour, trumpeting across all the land how our glorious president Willard has made substantial and severe cuts. This will be said with a straight face as Obamacare continues only to increase in size.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 20:00 | 2585552 Jay Gould Esq.
Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

I concur with Mr. Cashin; the Dissent must be read. Its beauty of prose is matched by its beauty and fidelity in defense of our besieged Constitution.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:47 | 2585589 Silver Bully
Silver Bully's picture

'If that means Mitt, then I'm all for it.'

You see a grave miscarriage of justice, and your first thought is to call an abortionist?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . . . . .

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 03:11 | 2586159 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

If you think Mitt's gonna kill it you are out of your mind.  The court ruled with the Chamber of Commerce, like this Supreme Court has done 100% of the time.  The same Chamber of Commerce that both Romney & Obama serve.  The insurance companies love this.  It is staying until the revolution.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:02 | 2584624 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 off topic Tyler/ can we get a CVN Navy chart? looks like things are heating up in the M/E again! Thanks.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:03 | 2584631 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

The mandate was originally a GOP idea - which makes it pretty humorous when they frantically now call it a Constitutional crisis.

Partisan idiocy.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:09 | 2584658 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Partisan idiocy.

 

Which you are fully engaging in.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:10 | 2584664 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

It's Partisan idiocy to bring up the idea this was a GOP idea.  It doesn't matter whose idea it is/was/etc.  The only thing that matters is getting rid of it.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 03:15 | 2586161 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

There are worse problems in the world than Obamacare.  Keep your eye on the prize.  Remember the banksters ruling the world problem.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:22 | 2584670 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/individual-health-care-insura...

Original 1989 Heritage Foundation proposal calling mandate "responsible to avoid free riders": http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care...

The individual mandate was proposed by Dale Bumpers (R-Ak) and co-sponsored by 26 other GOP Senators, as a counter to "HillaryCare" in the mid 1990s.  It was mainline GOP orthodoxy.

From the viewpoint of the insurers, you can't get rid of the pre-existing conditions exclusion, without penalizing the free riders.  This isn't rocket science.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:30 | 2584756 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

2700 pages of typical democrat bureaucracy does not compel me to think it's going to work. Ctl Delete.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:23 | 2585104 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

16,500 IRS enforcement agents ensure it will work as designed, not necessarily as advertised.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:34 | 2584775 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

So then....what you are saying.... is if this is such a great thing the wrong folks are getting all the credit for it - i.e. Obama and the multitude of special interests? We should really be celebrating the Heritage Foundation and their foresight now? Kind of like Art Howe getting all the credit for the A's 20+ game winning streak when it was really all Billy Beane's magic?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:54 | 2584840 TheProphet
TheProphet's picture

Bumpers was a Democrat Governor and Senator from Arkansas.

Not AK-- Alaska, but AR-- Arkansas.

And not R-- Republican, D-- Democrat.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:28 | 2584749 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

Party affiliation should have no bearing on the constitution and that is primarily why judges are there for life. Protection by the US Constitution is the whole idea behind American exceptionalism. No matter what race,religion,creed, etc. you have a chance to live the American dream and not have a preordained outcome. You will be the idiot if future Supreme Court rulings only matter by political affiliation. Remember you agreed with this ruling but what of the future rulings that you disagree with and your side is not in the majority. Will the Constitution matter more or less? The point is the Constitution is all any of us have that safeguards our freedom and individual liberty. Take that away and you have literally made us like every other despot led country.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:04 | 2584635 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Constitution, schmonstitution, - it's just words written by a bunch of women hating, slave owning, racist bigoted white men, right? What's it ever done for this country anyways. So who cares if it's trashed, can only be for the better.  <sarc off

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:04 | 2584636 caimen garou
caimen garou's picture

I read it then I had to VOMIT!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:08 | 2584653 mackjoo
mackjoo's picture

Bullish for stocks right?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:09 | 2584656 Meesohaawnee
Meesohaawnee's picture

what crack is Art on. constituion.. Your kidding me. that was crushed along with free speech with OWS. Im in chicago. we just puked 15mil to quash some un armed protesters. Should have seen the cops runnin around like there was a dunkin donut on every corner. Hail the king rahm. Really constitution my arsh.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:22 | 2584729 bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Cashin is a fool here, agreed. He has fallen for the high-priest cult of judges and lawyers who are just playing word games.

He thinks this is 'intellectual', ha! ...

Nonsense from a gang of corrupt judges who are talking about a Constitution that really means nothing to them aside from pretending to honour it...

The word games of lawyers and judges are mostly not intellectually significant or interesting.

It's just a college sophomore game, the 'ambiguous legal wording' game ... with the ugly twist that lawyers and judges destroy people's lives while they play it.

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:32 | 2585444 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

How can you say that when our very own, affirmative action president Obama is a constitutional scholar? Or as Clinton would say, "it depends on what the meaning of is, is".

Whether you like it or not, the constitution was written for the sole purpose of limiting the federal government's power over it's people. I think that is what these conservative judges were trying to say here. Of course you can think like Barney Frank, when he was asked about the Obamacare's constitutionality, he responded that the constitution had nothing to do with it. They were simply trying to help the American people. So...if your hearts in the right place, constitutions and laws and stuff don't mean crap. Just like the bankers looking out for whats best for the muppets. We be far too stupid to actually work for our own financial security. If it wasn't for our all powerful governments looking out for us, protecting us from them evil bankers and doctors and lawyers and businessmen, why we would be screwed!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:09 | 2584660 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

And meanwhile both parties support the Patriot Act, torture, suspension of habeas corpus whenever the President or others in power feel like it, wars without Congressional authority or approval, and on and on.   And we're sitting around arguing about a Constitutional crisis because of Obamacare? 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:18 | 2584708 newworldorder
newworldorder's picture

Give them one more generation and the document will probably be relegated to the dustbin of history. We dont seem to need it. All hail the 2 party system and the FED.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:43 | 2584802 moroots
moroots's picture

What's your point, you want to weight all the constitutional abuses?  I don't particular care to discuss which is worse, and I agree that the items you cite are abhorrent to the constitution.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:35 | 2585454 Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano's picture

Torture (3 people)?  We kill (aka assasinate) more than that every month under BHO via drones frequently in countries were not at war with.  And half the people the folks BHO has killed are by-standers.  Everyone killed would prefer torture. 

Torture?  Really?  BHO has gone way beyond that little problem.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:12 | 2584672 midgetrannyporn
midgetrannyporn's picture

Cashin is glad the maggot ny bankers are raping the world but outraged about owebamacare. LMAO!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:13 | 2584680 azzhatter
azzhatter's picture

Waiting for Texas to secede so I can move there

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:17 | 2584701 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Not sure you would be able to move there after it secedes.

Would that such a thing would ever happen.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:14 | 2584689 MrBoompi
MrBoompi's picture

Well, the Constitution also gave CONGRESS the authority to coin money and regulate the value thereof. did NOT require citizens to have government-issued IDs to vote, and certainly didn't consider corporations people with the right to spend unlimited money in secret on campaigns.

And people who know about healthcare tried to get people on board with single-payer healthcare, the one true plan for delivering more healthcare at lower costs, but nobody wanted to listen, and now all they can do is bitch and whine like little children.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:00 | 2585027 pods
pods's picture

Well, your "single payer" plan requires force to implement, correct?

So that basically means the same old groups that love to steer the chariot of coercion in their favor would take aim at the latest and greatest state power grab.

I am all for a single payer healthcare, meaning I pay someone for services rendered.

Why is it everyone tries to re-invent the something for nothing gig and resell it?

A bigger, gentler statism, for my benefit.

pods

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:15 | 2584691 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

I am a radical progressive --- and while I don't agree with the rightwingers who criticize Romney-Obama-Care, 'cause they don't want any form of universal healthcare -- and I fully support single payer -- their criticisms are sometimes valid:

more monies flowing to the health insurance companies (and the banksters who own them), and no cap on insurance premiums, and no action taken on the top two health insurance cost drivers: (1) hedge fund speculation across the entire healthcare sector, and (2) private equity leveraged buyouts across the entire healthcare sector.

One and two could only happen in a for-profit, fee-based system.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:45 | 2584811 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

radical progressive... Hey what's up Karl Marx.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:17 | 2584911 FMR Bankster
FMR Bankster's picture

You could eliminate healthcare companies and would only take 3% out of healthcare costs. When you have third party payers (goverment and insurance paid for by companies)there will be no checks on costs. Huge investments go into drugs and devices that prolong life 3 to 6 months for 88 year olds in nursing homes. As long as somebody else is paying nobody cares about the costs. This isn't rocket science. We need more investment in factories, technology, ect and less in healthcare. And the only way to do that is a return to markets. Unfortunately 70 years of distortions from third payer involvement makes that very, very difficult.when it comes to healthcare every idiot believes he deserves Lexis coverage on somebody else's dime.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:51 | 2585211 Argonaught
Argonaught's picture

That's right. And until someone can actually explain why if universal health care is so good, people from countries that offer it VOLUNTARILY come to the US to pay for medical care....and since I understand that those countries offer free care to anyone in the country (even US citizens travelling there), why don't people VOLUNTARILY go there for care?  Yes, it costs to travel to Canada....but even the apologists for single payer know that real answer to this question. They just don't like to talk about it.

It's life.  You get a choice.  Inferior care for all or a the greatest medical technology/best trained physicians in a market based system with winners and losers (yes, some will have to decide to get surgery or buy another flat screen).

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:16 | 2584697 CheapBastard
CheapBastard's picture

Have to put that reading on hold, Art, I am watching Judge Judy re-runs right now.

 

Maybe tomorrow...during commericals.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:37 | 2584783 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

But, then DWTS and/or American Idol will be on.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:17 | 2584702 Gringo Viejo
Gringo Viejo's picture

Government at every level is starved for revenue. Obamacare in reality, is the largest tax increase in the history of the world. It is therefore against the interests of the republicrats to overturn it. If God had not wanted them shorn, He would not have made them sheep.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:54 | 2585014 RichardP
RichardP's picture

... the largest tax increase in the history of the world ...

The penalty/tax is only assessed against those above a certain income level who do not purchase health insurance.  From this amount raised, you must subtract the money that the Feds are already paying for emergency room treatments for those without health insurance - since we will no longer be taxed for that amount.

After the above exercise, you really think that the amount of money left will constitute the largest tax increase in history??  Do you have links to someone who has crunched the numbers in a realistic way on this issue?  Remember, if the penalty works, everyone who is supposed to will purchase health insurance and the Feds will receive zero dollars in penalty/tax payments.  Largest tax increase in history??

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:18 | 2584711 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Mitch McConnell has already come out and said that Obamacare will be hard to "unravel".  So there you go.  Put that with Romneycare and no constitution. It's over.  Go back to abortion or the birth certificate or some other issue where you can waste your time.  The political class loves to waste your time.  Game over, man.  Game over.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:34 | 2584773 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

Mitch McKentucky is going to get run over by the outrage and better re-examine his constituency.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:22 | 2584728 walcott
walcott's picture

Obama wet dreams of his father 99% taxation. 100% marxist. 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:28 | 2584750 magpie
magpie's picture

Worst kind of tax farming.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:03 | 2585042 pods
pods's picture

You better shut up and eat your peas.........

Or pay the tax for NOT eating your damn peas!

pods

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:09 | 2585060 magpie
magpie's picture

Watching BB earlier i was irritated by their euphoria.

Since everyone had insurance now(which isn't true) they would need an extra voucher system (didn't mention peas or death panels yet) so that the ignorant masses wouldn't waste their new free health care. Go figure.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:34 | 2584774 batz
batz's picture

 

The legislative process has either become poisoned or malignant, and it's spawning these statutory "flipper babies" as a result.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:38 | 2584787 Meesohaawnee
Meesohaawnee's picture

tell me what ya think about your constitution after reading george ..

 

“Politicians are put there to give you that idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, and they’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, and the City Halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear. They’ve got you by the balls. 

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want—they don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interest. You know something, they don’t want people that are smart enough to sit around their kitchen table and figure out how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that, you know what they want?

They want obedient workers, obedient workers. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. The table is tilted folks, the game is rigged. Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. Good honest hard working people, white collar, blue collar, it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Because the owners of this country know the truth, it’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:46 | 2584814 Centurion9.41
Centurion9.41's picture

Sounds like a petulant spoiled brat who doesn't have the cojones to stand up and fight for what is right.

He's probably in his parent's basement playing some Zombie game on an Xbox.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:59 | 2584851 r00t61
r00t61's picture

I guess you don't realize that this is one of George Carlin's most famous monologues...

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:15 | 2584899 Centurion9.41
Centurion9.41's picture

Carlin was at times funny, and wise. But when he went political & religious he often lied & twisted facts like a politician to get a laugh.

So yes, I stand by my statement.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:21 | 2584925 10mm
10mm's picture

I think George had a serious "Awakeing".

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:08 | 2584872 10mm
10mm's picture

Who's gonna have the "COJONES" to stand up and fight.Who,who who who.Theres no fight anymore,sorry.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:41 | 2584799 notadouche
notadouche's picture

Anyone know what started the French Revolution?  Anyone see parallels?  I hope asking questions doesn't land me on a list.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 21:14 | 2585726 lamont cranston
lamont cranston's picture

If that happens here, Obama will need to line up a Piss Boy Double a la Mel Brooks real quick. 

"And now, to invent...THE CATPUT!!!" 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:44 | 2584801 Centurion9.41
Centurion9.41's picture

Zombies: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

Note Bene, it is coming.

It's only a matter of a little time in a nation where so many think killing an unborn child for their happiness is not an act of evil, all the while thinking at it morally right to steal from another citizen via a penalty called a "tax" to pay the medical bills to do so.

It is not by accident "zombie behavior" has occurred; what a society celebrates as art resides in their sub-conscience and comes forth from the depths of their psyche when their fantasies are loosed by drugs.

Restraint and respect stand no chance against the passions when the fence surrounding them has been laid so low and the passions so inflamed by lies and fantasies.

Rome burned, the West will again be so pruned.

So many have warned you. The flames of evil swarm all around the world, it's flames jumping throughout the middle-east.

The Brown-Shit Zombies are coming. The Zombies are coming.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:11 | 2584880 10mm
10mm's picture

Sounds like Satan and the gang are on full burners to me.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:59 | 2585023 RichardP
RichardP's picture

Jim Morrison?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:44 | 2585337 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Jim Lahey

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:45 | 2584812 New American Re...
New American Revolution's picture

Liberty is defined by sufficient transaparency in government to allow the people to give the Consent of the Governed when they vote.   If the transparency is not there, neither is Liberty, for when the Consent of the Governed rules, so do the people over their government, and not the government over the people.   This level of transparency is only available under our Constitution when the powers of Congress defined in Article 1 Sec 8&9 are conducted by Congress within the Public Forum.   Most all of these powers have been "outsourced" to private, and quasi-private and public agencies outside of Congress and the Public Forum and there is no transparency.  Therefore, it is impossible for the people to render their Consent of the Governed and thereby justify the rule of our Government.   And so to correct this deficiency, a new Super Pac has been created and a website to designed to specifically take back Congress, force it to reclaim its powers, place their execution back into the Public Forum and establish the transparency we need to be able to judge the candidates running for Congress, thus restoring the peoples rule over our government and our Liberty.   See www.electanewcongress.com

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:21 | 2584932 Centurion9.41
Centurion9.41's picture

"Liberty is defined by sufficient transaparency in government to allow the people to give the Consent of the Governed when they vote."

It's moronic thoughts like these, which the bloviators consider intelligent, that are rampant in this poorly educated society.

Liberty you dumb @ss is a right that needs not, nor is defined by, any transparency. Least of which one based upon the concept of a government.

Clearly you do not understand the concept of a limited government that serves to protect liberty but rather think liberty the handmaiden of government to console and control Sheeple.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!