Powered by TypePad

« Let's Play Two! On To Holder | Main | Zimmerman Back In Court Today »

June 29, 2012



Are we now all Chicagoans?

Mel, speaking in my very best (Another)Barabara imitation voice:

No. We are not! Nor will we ever be.



Love it.


Sara - but of course. And thank you.


--I hear the claim that because it's really a penalty it can not be called a tax, despite a Supreme Court ruling that defines it as so, no matter the logic used to arrive there.--

The White House merely suggests you call it a penalty.
You may opt to not call it a penalty and instead call it a tax if you so choose.
However, if you do you will be assessed a penalty......or a tax......or a fee........or a surcharge that may at times be a tax or at others a penalty and occasionally both simultaneously ....depending on internal polling and what stage the election cycle is in.


Re TAXMEGGHEDON . . . Is Reid really going to let this happen, because he thinks that by then Obama will have safely won four more years, and they'll have all those lovely fatter tax receipts to spend times eleventy! and that brilliant Nobel Prize winner Krugman has assured him that Yes We Can tax and spend our way out of debt and into prosperity?


No derwill. I suspect the tuned in people will start hiding their money (mattresses, anyone?) and curb their ambitions toward making any more, while clinging bitterly to what they already have. Oh, and buying a gun. Lots and lots of gun sales recently, doncha know.
(Janet will fill us in on the bible clingers, but I bet they are multiplying too.)


Yeah, centraical, going Galt is starting to look awfully tempting. Except the vindictive side of me wants to go all Cloward-Priven on their asses and do my part to collapse the system by becoming a moocher.


Derwill, honey, if THEY have their way, none of us will have any choice at all except to become a MOOCHER! (Anybody speak Greek on this thread?)

I am feeling very Gus-like tonight. Might be the cocktails, might be Obamataxation looming on my horizon. (or ... sigh... old age?)


Ccal: I started to comment that I agree with your assessment regarding that busy people with jobs are not the uninformed, just the delayed or lesser informed.

Back in my working days, I wasn't even aware of Watergate until just before Nixon resigned and I worked at a major daily newspaper. However, over in the advertising dept., we were so busy and always on some deadline, there was no time to keep up. I got my news, such as it was, from morning drive or evening drive radio and maybe a few minutes worth, if I left the building for lunch. Now I could tell you just about anything you wanted to know about double trucks, reverses, column inches, etc, but I doubt back then I even knew the names of any politicians and barely knew who was Governor.

Drive time radio back then wasn't very political, although I often learned from drive time radio about the paper's flubs such as being on my way to work, tooling along down I-15, when I heard them laughing about an ad in the classified section of that morning's paper that read: "Grandfather's cock for sale, good working order, best offer" and other typos like that. You just knew it was going to be bad day before you even got to work.



GK Chesterton explains the issue Obama is going to face succinctly --

"A citizen can hardly distinguish between a tax and a fine, except that the fine is generally much lighter."


Ha Ha, Sara! Gotta love local talk radio!

I was, sadly, late to appreciate all it has to offer both locally and regionally and nationally.


Oh man, thanks Appalled. That one is worth salting away for future reference.
Love Chesterton but had never heard that one.


You know, Appalled, you may have hit perfectly on the death knell of Obamatax. Who wouldn't prefer the "fine" to the "tax?"


Via National Geographic News you can use (well maybe):

Blink and you'll miss it, but the world's atomic timekeepers are giving you a little more downtime this weekend.

They are adding a "Leap" second.


How are ILLEGAL ALIENS going to PROVE that they are INSURED?

Charlie (Colorado)

Anyone else that way?

jack, I like Safari well enough, but I need to deal with Windows, Linux,a dn BSD for work. That makes it pretty much Firefox or nothing.

Charlie (Colorado)

CHACO has touched on this at least twice today, perhaps too subtly.

Something that isn't said about me very often.

Oh, and I agree with you.


Breaking News from the Senate:

Lisa Murkowski introduces bill that would rename Mount McKinley.

"U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has introduced legislation to change the name of North America's tallest peak from Mount McKinley to Mount Denali."

"...the official name of America's tallest mountain means something to Alaska," Murkowski told a subcommittee.

But according to the the ADN there is good news for everyone.

"Murkowski said opponents of a name change can continue to refer to the peak as Mount McKinley."



I kinda like Mount Dinali, reminds me of my Mother's story of using the 3-sided outhouse with the open side overlooking Dinali.



(John Hinderaker) I have learned from multiple sources that two recent polls, conducted by independent polling firms, show that Minnesota will be in play in this year’s presidential race. Even in blue Minnesota, Obama can’t get to 50%.

I don't understand why some people are being so deferential to Roberts' opinion.

Scalia, Alito, and Thomas called it bull hockey, and they could be called experts in constitutional law.


The problem with the ruling isn't that it created new taxing powers.

The problem is that they can now regulate any and all behavior and commerce (as long as the regulation is via a tax)--that was not true before.


While it is true that we are responsible for the representatives that we pick, the Constitution is supposed to protect us from majority rule.


Why didn't Thomas, Alito, or Scalia see the "brilliance" of Roberts' 3-D chess?

Why didn't they understand that they must twist the law to make it constitutional (if possible)?

Are they incompetent?


Why do I suspect that if a "conservative" mandate is created (via a "tax") that the SCOTUS will strike it down. Certainly, all four liberals would rule against it.

Do any of you Roberts defenders dispute this?


Finally, why am I talking to myself at 3 AM? :)


Sorry, mockmook, I have one last point I want to make.

Why didn't Roberts have the "tax" question re-argued next term? This momentous decision, with this novel "tax" claim, deserved to have full arguments and briefs on the just the novel "tax" issue.

Goodnight, mockmook.

Charlie (Colorado)

Why didn't Thomas, Alito, or Scalia see the "brilliance" of Roberts' 3-D chess?

Why didn't they understand that they must twist the law to make it constitutional (if possible)?

Are they incompetent?

Dude, take it easy on teh coffee. You make it sound like Roberts wrassled them for it.


Arab Spring update:

Seems like every time Democracy breaks out in Tahrir Square another Western reporterette gets raped.


daddy - The assaults on women in Egypt are enough to tear at your heart.

The thought that the Left portrays this as an "Arab Spring" a la the "Prague Spring" of democracy is a travesty beyond belief.

This is the wholly expected result of the Muslim Brotherhood's takeover of the pro-democracy movement.


Even if you could accept the 'tax' argument, I would make two salient points.

First off, if the idea was to stop people from using emergency rooms and getting care without paying this utterly fails because illegal aliens are EXCLUDED from the tax. So you have 12 million people you have already given a pass.

My second point is even if you found this constitutional by some argument, it doesn't make sense to make the argument that everyone who doesn't have health insurance pay the tax because many of them don't have it for legitimate reasons and don't need it and don't burden the medical system. You are still 'punishing' and/or coercing them into an activity.

So it would be the same argument that since the feds regulate healthcare they can tax you for not eating brocilli, which may eventually affect the heath system.

The proper place to put such a tax if it was constitutional would be on those who actually use healthcare, because then you would be taxing an activity (Going to a doctor/emergency room), not inactivity.


And what about the millions of Americans that live overseas and don't plan to come to the states? They may use a foriegn plan or use a foriegn health system that does not comply with US regulations. Does Roberts believe an American Nun living in Botwana for the last 30 years must be taxed for not buying a commodity she has no use for or not using American healthcare??


I think these malekanoms Youtube "conversations" are genius. This one (h/t Ace) is titled "Healthcare Explained". My favorite line:

"Making a product less desirable for consumers and then forcing them to buy it is not an elegant solution."

The comments to this entry are closed.