There Is No Mandate

I have heard it time and time again. “Never in our history has the government forced an individual to buy something.” (Actually false from a couple of different angles.)

“This health care mandate is unconstitutional.” Several states have filed suit against the Fed on these grounds.

Well thanks to MSNBC and Huffington Post contributor, Lawrence O’Donnell, I’ve learned the dirty little secret that neither Republicans nor Democrats want you to know.

There is no individual mandate. Yes you read that right. No mandate. Nothing, nada, zilch. Let one of my favorite commentators, “Crazy Larry” explain it to you. Pay close attention at the 2 minute and 30 second mark after Larry has shot down one of Jim DeMint’s lies.

But don’t take his word for it. Here is the legal language from page 336 of the bill.

(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
Patient Protection Affordable Care Act As Passed.

So now the law suits that were already frivolous have become totally absurd. Yes, there is a penalty for not purchasing insurance but there is no penalty for not paying the penalty. The penalty is not enforced in any way. On the contrary, the law prohibits enforcement of the penalty.

Why won’t anyone from the President to the Democrats to the Republicans ever tell you this? Simple. The President and his party want you to buy insurance. If you don’t, premiums inevitably rise. So they need you to believe there is an enforceable penalty for not doing so.

As for the Grand Old Stale Party, they can’t tell you the truth because then their fundamental debating point goes out the window. How can something that doesn’t exist be unconstitutional?

At this point I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I’m glad to see the Party of No exposed for the fools and liars they are. On the other hand if too many folks learn the truth, the expansion of health care coverage could be seriously compromised.

Once again the first bite of the sausage tastes real good but don’t look in that kitchen!

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

135 thoughts on “There Is No Mandate

  1. That doesn’t mean, of course, that they can’t garnish your wages to collect the original penalty. Or that they can’t take you to civil court. Or (shudder) tax court. So this statement:

    “The penalty is not enforced in any way. On the contrary, the law prohibits enforcement of the penalty.”

    Is absolutely incorrect. The law says nothing about enforcement or collections, it simply says that they won’t assess additional penalties. In fact it specifies that with the exception of adding additional penalties or putting a lien on your house, the original penalty for nonparticipation should be collected just as tax penalties are now.

  2. Rutherford your position on this is absolutely ridiculous. Just look at MA or just look at the IRS saying they’ll go for your rebate. There are a ton of things to look at that shows that this slice of HCR and many other parts of the pie are toxic.
    Thanks to you and Odonnel though we can be assured the gamers,of which there are legion,will now comfortably game the taxpayers. Bravo!

  3. I write an article saying “the sun rises in the East” — indisputable and Geoff writes a comment saying “the sun rises in the West”.

    Geoff, I quoted the law as written. Please go into the law (I provided a link) and tell me where there is any mention of garnishing wages or any sort of prosecution.

    There is a simple bottom line. The verbiage of the law assumes one has a choice to pay the tax penalty for non-insurance or refuse/neglect to pay the penalty. If you do the latter, nothing happens to you, Period.

    Anyone can pull paranoid possibilities out of their ass. Please provide me with chapter and verse from the ACA that demonstrates your point.

  4. Geoff,

    Rutherford Lawson, National Socialist American Workers’ Party and Chancellor of MSNBC propaganda, is a master of “half-truths”, the proverbial bait & switch, and parroting Leftist talking points – the more left, the better. “r” worships at the altar of Larry O’Donnell and Butch Madcow when not seeking out Sarah Palin gaffes to report. He’s a master of the craft.

    =======================

    So Rutherford, being I am absolutely too lazy to research this as I feel confident that your proud Bomba Health Care will be found unconstitutional and unenforceable by a 5-4 vote leaving clowns like you with egg on their face and the butt of more jokes, if there is no enforcement under law, no penalty, and no worries, why even the mention and why that we need 16-17K new jack boots operating under the IRS banner again?

    See, my first question to you would be if your health care bill really manna from the Chicago Messiah, why the need to mislead, obfuscate, confuse, and produce 2,700 pages of pure legalese horse shit? It’s already a pretty well established fact that the greatest legal scholars, and the dumb asses that created this tripe, don’t even know what the hell the new law says.

    It’s quickly becoming a disgrace in public opinion, and that is before you strong arm it into law and it begins to really screw the pooch. If you had any sense, you might recognize that this bunk, most of which few if any apparently understand, is a poorly crafted time bomb for Marxists like you.

    Here is what is going to happen.

    The new dictate will quickly becoming a real boondoggle, which is about the only thing progressives such as yourself can produce, and a boon for attorneys to debate and goose steppers to enforce. While bankrupting the country, it will eventually benefit few and piss millions off in the process.

    You think you’ve won something really big as does Bongo, but as the months drag by and the battle of the wills drags on, more people will come to the conclusion, just as they have our idiotic tax laws, that this is a real stinker of an idea and dangerous too.

    People like myself will begin to rebel while giving you goose steppers the one fingered salute. Many will purposely spike the process, maybe even refusing to abide by the issue.

    The Party of “No” should just quietly let the public handle this, because this time you goons can’t mealy-mouth and provide lame excuse since it is all yours – and most people are going to come looking for someone to blame.

    The majority now recognize, or will recognize, that the Marxists possibly have killed the golden goose and sometime soon, you and your bullying party will become hated for your constant meddling. No telling what some crazies might do as I can sense a million James Stacks lining up.

    Now the bright side: there is a wonderful opportunity for people that aren’t capable of competing in the free market and requiring the nanny to provide the tit; leeches like you and Wally should get your applications in quickly. For Wally, it will be the first time to experience real power. But only for a time. 😉

  5. Alfie, if I am not mistaken the federal law supersedes State law so why should I “look at MA”? When did the IRS say they’d go after your rebate? Did Jim DeMint tell you that?

    There is no gaming in quoting what is in black and white in the bill. The words speak for themselves. There is no enforceable penalty. Period. As I said to Geoff, prove otherwise and I’ll be glad to listen.

    I might add that all this reflects very poorly on the legislative process. The linchpin in making health care affordable is having a huge insurance pool from which to pay out claims. If there is no incentive to buy insurance, nor a disincentive to avoid buying insurance, the entire house of cards falls to pieces. It’s actually a pretty disturbing development.

    I’m actually a bit surprised that you and Geoff did not ridicule Lawrence O’Donnell for his smugness when he is actually admitting the bill has no teeth.

  6. Tex, lots of sound and fury signifying nothing. More Marxist sloganeering.

    if there is no enforcement under law, no penalty, and no worries, why even the mention and why that we need 16-17K new jack boots operating under the IRS banner again?

    I guess I should’ve told folks to pay attention to the part of the video before the 2 min 30 second mark as well.

    Tex, there is no Santa Clause and there will not be an additional 16K IRS agents. DeMint pulled this out of his ass. As O’Donnell points out, you don’t DOUBLE the current number of agents over a sliver of new tax legislation. DeMint is a liar. And of course, anyone who lies in hopes of scaring the American people is alright with you.

    Funny thing is Tex …. if I ever said “I’m too lazy to prove it but I know the law is unconstitutional” you’d laugh your ass off. C’mon man … you’re at least as edumacated as I am (if not more so) so dig deep and prove your point. 😉

  7. On a side note, I fear that Dead Rabbit made good on his intention to bail from the blog. He’ll be sorely missed. Either that or he was one of the nine militia men from Michigan currently in the slammer. 😯

  8. Rutherford, I actually hope you are wrong about this. Covering for pre-existing conditions in the absence of a true individual mandate will indeed drive premium costs up and will indeed drive insurance companies out of business.

    — hp

  9. Geoff, I quoted the law as written. Please go into the law (I provided a link) and tell me where there is any mention of garnishing wages or any sort of prosecution.

    I already did, of course, and already told you the gist of it. But here is the answer you seek (from p. 336):

    The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided by paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.

    Subchapter B of chapter 68 refers to the IRS penalties that may be assessed for late filing, incomplete filing, fraudulent filing, etc. So here’s what it really says: they will come after you to recover the penalty you owe, using the standard suite of approaches. The only difference between this an a standard IRS penalty collection is that they’re not allowed to assess additional penalties, prefer criminal charges, or attach a lien to your house. Anything else is still on the table.

    Learn to read. You should have already realized your error after re-reading the excerpt you quoted above, which is very specific in what it excludes. Instead, you’ve perpetuated your mistake to your own embarrassment.

  10. A quote from the IRS commissionar
    He said insurers eventually will be required to file a document similar to Form 1099 used by financial institutions to report investment income. The agency will send letters to the uninsured notifying them fines could be deducted from their tax refunds for refusing to comply with the new law, Shulman said.
    And R I asked you to look at MA to diminish your ignorance. We have a lesson for the nation and if you choose not to come to “school” well shame on you.

  11. Rutherford is suggesting that it is acceptable to break the law of the land because there is no punishment for doing so.

    That the fact that there is no punishment is the same as there being no law to punish.

    Rutherford, this might come a s a shock to you, but there are people in this country who make it a point to respect the law—even the ones we don’t like.

    This posts suggests that is not a point that sits high on your list of values.

  12. Also, why is it only the GOP who are liars for not wanting the fact this is toothless to get out?

    Lying is lying. It doesn’t matter who does it, or why.

    Lying is ok if your motivations are good. Laws don’t need to be followed if you aren’t going to be punished.

    I certainly hope you teach your child better morals than what you have been displaying here lately.

  13. Factcheck.org already debunked the 16,000 IRS workers.

    The law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation.

    I guess GOPhers have nothing better to do than get another right-wing nut to commit an act of domestic terror. Spending your day trolling for “Tim McVeigh wannabes” must be the latest rave at freerepublic, WND, or Tex’s church of IHATEYOU.

  14. Lying is ok if your motivations are good. Laws don’t need to be followed if you aren’t going to be punished.

    Oh “LOL” please get off your high horse. The air must be awfully thin way up there.

    If everyone were ethical all laws would be issued without penalties for noncompliance because everyone would comply. That’s not the world we live in and you know it. So now that we have established that laws do need penalties for non-compliance, the next question is are the penalties meaningful? If I park in a no-parking zone and get ticketed and I refuse to pay the ticket and nothing happens to me, then that is a meaningless penalty. When enough folks find out that the penalty is meaningless, only the ethical folks (like you and me) will bother following the law.

    On your other point, I thought I was very clear in the article that neither Dem’s nor Republicans are going to be straight with you about this, each for their own reason. Perhaps my liberal bias prevented me from coming down on the Dem’s as hard for lying as I did for the GOP.

    I’m still puzzled. Where is the understandable outrage about this being a toothless bill? I guess since you don’t like the bill, you’re rather glad it’s toothless.

  15. Geoff, what you say makes little sense. If the government can force compliance by rebate-reduction, garnishing wages, etc. then they don’t need to worry about your compliance and paragraph 2 becomes unnecessary. In other words, “veee have vays of making you pay.” — so why any talk of penalty at all?

    Paragraph 2 assumes that you did not comply with paragraph 1 and nothing will happen to you as a result. Or to put it differently, “except as provided by paragraph (2)” nullifies the subsequent reference to subchapter B of section 68.

  16. Alfie the IRS commissioner is hypothesizing. He’s probably talking out of turn for that matter. Regardless he is certainly not going to say you don’t have to pay the tax. The exception verbiage is buried in the law for a reason, so most folks like you will listen to the IRS commissioner and get worried.

    I’d go out on a limb and push Lawrence O’Donnell’s analysis one step further, I’d suggest that “paragraph 2” may very well have been inserted in the law because legislators were afraid of a constitutional challenge. I’m just guessing.

  17. HP, I hope Crazy Larry is wrong too. But he is a former Chief of Staff for the Senate Finance Committee under Clinton and he knows how to read legislation. I wouldn’t dismiss him too quickly.

    You’re right. If Larry is correct, it spells big trouble for the law.

  18. Well I have to say that although I enjoy adding to threads I am getting sick and tired of the reality that threads here rarely offer compromise or mutual acceptance of basic truths.
    it’s not my place to hijack your ideals or blog and I have no desire to just come here and trash you personally.
    I live in MASS. I file the HC schedule with my taxes. I also live in a state that has experienced skyrocketing premiums and have today followed up on a story that looked at how people pay the meager fine one year,pay three months of premiums another and then back out of the plan. tis is setting the stage for some crazy shit here in the Bay State from Obama-Lite Gov. Deval Patrick.
    Rutherford I am literally begging you (and thats well beneath me) to dial into what is happening in your northern neighbor.
    That’s coming from a guy that thinks a handful of items in the law are good ideas. The ones I feel are not are ones that should be killed immediately. We have this albatross tied around our necks now and it isn’t gonna go anywhere. it will be there until we all decide to unite and do what is right.

  19. Wally,

    Using FactCheck.org to establish truth is like using Media Matters to determine documented fact. FactCheck is a ruse of a left-wing shill organization full of hacks posing as objective journalists. This is a common libbie ploy used to fool shallow, elementary rubes like you. When are you going to realizew you’re the Ayatollah’s 14 year old abandoned kid running through the mine field? Allahu Wally!!!! ululululuuuululuuu

    But I will admit I am simply taking what I’ve read about new IRS agents being hired to goosestep through living rooms. So tell me NAMBLA, who is that is going to enforce the new rules, and how many agents will it take?

    Can I have in permission in writing to cut your balls off and shove them in your mouth if you’re wrong? Because I think you and FactCheck are full of shit all of the time. Somebody is going to have to enforce this racket and are going to hire oodles of jackboots on the public dime. And I want to know which ones to shoot when they show up?

    If you’re in the know, fill us little minions in. Because this smells of NAMBLA Wally propaganda and lying to me.

  20. what 20 should’ve looked like:
    so most folks like you will listen to the IRS commissioner and get worried.
    Rutherford explain that line!

  21. In other words, “veee have vays of making you pay.” — so why any talk of penalty at all?

    The IRS has recourse to exactly the same mechanisms, but also penalizes taxpayers, presses criminal charges, and levies liens against houses. Even though they can garnish wages and reduce rebates. Why?

    Paragraph 2 assumes that you did not comply with paragraph 1 and nothing will happen to you as a result

    Nope. Paragraph 2 assumes that you did not comply, and prohibits the IRS from attaching your home or levying punishments. It does not prevent them from collecting via other means – in fact, the intro explicitly tells them to.

    Here’s the logic tree:

    Pay!!
    …Yes = Done
    …No:
    ……Can Pay? = Take Money Via Normal Collection Procedures, But No Punishment
    ……Can’t Pay? = Send Bill and Lurk, But No Lien or Punishment

    Not clear whether they can still charge interest – I think the clause is loose enough that they can. And the IRS philosophy follows T. H. White: “Everything not forbidden is compulsory.”

  22. Rutherford,

    Funny thing is Tex …. if I ever said “I’m too lazy to prove it but I know the law is unconstitutional” you’d laugh your ass off. C’mon man … you’re at least as edumacated as I am (if not more so) so dig deep and prove your point.

    No old friend. I just know it would be a waste of my time as any frickin’ imbecile can see the only way you get this POS implemented is by strong arming and coercion. You guys ain’t rocket science.

    The only thing I’m worried about right now is can I line up enough Timothy McVeighs to make sure there is a price to pay for your negligence if you’re wrong! 😛

    So if there’s no penalty, and therefore no abidance, and you’ve assured me no new taxes, and no goosestepping thugs from the IRS, and all is peachy with manna from Obama heaven, why would I bother?

    See, I’ve already got it figured out if you do happen to get the POS passed. I’m laying down man, milking the Obama tit, dropping my insurance, and paying the fine – but it will be hard to get blood out of a turnip, so I won’t be doing that either.

    I’m taking the Wally route – living off the dole, being a bum, stealing the chow. 🙂

    I hope you’re ready for another 50MM to join the rolls of uninsured. I’m tired of rowing, so now I’m joining up on the left coast vacation along for the ride.

  23. Tex “I want to kill federal workers” McVeigh,

    16,500 came from the Republicans on the House
    Ways and Means Committee.

    nuff said as to whether it is accurate or not.

  24. FactCheck is a ruse of a left-wing shill organization

    HOLY F*CK*NG SH*T!!!!

    I swear old internet opponents become like married couples. They can complete each other’s sentences. When I read Curator quoting FactCheck.org I kid you not, I said to myself, Tex will say that is a left-wing shill organization!!!! ROTFLMAO. I just wish I had responded fast enough to predict Tex’s response.

    Tex, how can anyone not love you man? You are as friggin’ reliable as the sun rising every morning! 😀 😆

  25. “R”,

    Tex, how can anyone not love you man? You are as friggin’ reliable as the sun rising every morning!

    😆

    No more reliable than your predilections for scamming for Zerobama.

    Fact Check is a joke – a bad one. It’s a scam set up for imbeciles like AWallyOL to pass as fact under clever names. They aren’t interested in fact – they’re interested in self promotion.

    It’s the oldest trick in the book Rutherford. Evil corporations that actually employ people for profit do it all of the time. I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know.

    But I do have to admit, like you I’m finding the two of us can almost complete each other’s sentences anymore.

  26. If you’ll look Rutherford towards the end of threads, I have been predicting the subject matter of your next post and haven’t been wrong yet.

    Didn’t get time to do this one as I’ve been bad mouthing Hippie and his lamebrain ideas at his blog. Unlike Wally, each of you have a degree of the likability component – in small doses, of course. 🙂

  27. 16,500 came from the Republicans on the House
    Ways and Means Committee.

    nuff said as to whether it is accurate or not.

    But you didn’t answer my question AWOL. First, who is going to enforce Obama’s dictatorial agenda of forcing people to get health care?

    And second, how many of the enforcers will be necessary? I want to hold you accountable for your idea of truth. Get that for me Wally and get back with me.

    – Tex “Cut Curator’s balls off for sport” Taylor

  28. Parody of the day…Leftist women are even more screwed up than Leftist men, perhaps explaining the self-defeating attitudes of Rutherford, Hippie and AWOL. If I were married to women like this, perhaps I’d be a flaming lib too.

    Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was “enraged” by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration. The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around topless as it does to men without shirts on.

    However, McDowell said she plans to organize similar demonstrations in the future and said she would be more “aggressive” in discouraging oglers.

    http://www.pressherald.com/news/Women-march-topless-in-Portland-without-incident.html

    I’m 50 years old and still marvel at how twisted libbie women are. I guess bare titties supersede politics for even progressive men. 😈

  29. Hey Old Man Rutherford,

    You were bragging on the previous thread about Zero restoring the country. Where?

    The Sobering Truth Behind Unemployment Numbers

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Sobering-Truth-Behind-etfguide-1880820326.html?x=0

    Catch this truth about Zero’s successes:

    However, the real unemployment rate, even by the standards of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is much higher. The U-6 unemployment number, as the real data is called, is at 17.5%, within 0.5% of its all-time high. This figure includes discouraged workers who’ve stopped looking, marginally attached workers, and workers that are forced to work part-time because full-time jobs are not available.

    That is a real successful restoration there Rutherford. Where you an Enron stockholder too? 😈

  30. So I’m now more than ever convinced Rutherford is but a loyal foot soldier for the Left.
    I just read a piece by Ezra Klein and it has the same theme as R’s.
    Anyway I still await a response from my earliers Rutherford- Alie

  31. Massey Energy Co had 400 safety violations in 2010, and 500 safety violations in 2009. I wonder if the workers were allowed to unionize they could have refused unsafe work conditions?

    CEO of Massey Energy Company Don Blankenship (million dollar Tea Party donator) inhabits a strange and bizarre world. In his world:

    It’s fine for elementary school-age children to inhale coal dust while playing at school because Massey Coal “already pays millions of dollars in taxes each year”.
    Blankenship truly believes that government regulation means “we all better learn to speak Chinese.”
    He has absolutely no problem paying $3 million to elect state Supreme Court justice Brent Benjamin just ahead of a scheduled hearing of his appeal to overturn a large damage award for driving competitor Harman Mining Corporation into bankruptcy.

    Blankenship will spend millions to keep the Massey Energy’s workforce non-union, is perfectly happy to discriminate against union workers

    UMWA International President Cecil E. Roberts said. “While it was discriminating against these experienced miners because of their age or union status, the company was at the same time publicly crying about the lack of experienced miners in the coalfields.

    “But it wasn’t that Massey couldn’t find experienced miners,” Roberts said. “They were there all along and wanted to work. It was that the company would rather break the law than allow its employees to have a strong voice at work and the tremendous benefits of a union contract.”

    An investment in experienced workers trained in state-of-the art safety measures combined with OSHA compliance and mine safety measures might have saved at least 25, and possibly 29 lives.

    Instead Don Blankenship spent that money and more on a US Chamber of Commerce corporate-sponsored tea party to convince good, hard-working honest people to work against their best interests. Mr Massey: WAS IT CHEAPER TO JUST PAY THE FINES RATHER THAN UPDATE YOUR SYSTEMS?

  32. Leave it to the reprehensible Curator to make politics out of tragedy, blanketed with anti Tea Party propaganda. And rest assured it was copied right out of UMWA propaganda.

    Straight out of the Saul Alinsky, Rahm Emanuel motto “of never missing an opportunity to make hay over tragedy.”

    Right along the lines of dancing Jewish children playing hop scotch in concentration camps.

    Expect more of this from Curator as November approaches.

  33. What do you want me to refute Wally?

    That 25 people died in an incredibly risky business, that unions have their own negligent record of safety (TWA 800 ring any bells about negligence?), that unions have bankrupted virtually every business they’ve been involved and a sordid history of corruption, that I think you are a despicable human being that the world would be better off without?

    I was just making example that you’ll tie anything you can to stifle dissent of voices, if you think it is damaging your feckless and lame party, and that I find you about on par with Baghdad Bob concerning truthfulness.

    I neither deny or refute your charges. Simply to make point they are irrelevant and you’ll use tragedy and death to make a political statement if you think it will score points or stick.

    What does humor though is how you think our economy will coming humming back to save Bongo if every “big” industry is overburdened with taxes, and treated like criminals by Bongo and you? We’ve had Big Oil, Big Energy, Big Pharma, Big Coal, Big Auto (unless purchased by the government – nice union work), Big Airline, Big Banking, Big Finance, Big Manufacturing, Big Insurance, Big Medical Supply, Big Commercial Fishing, Big Wall Street, Big Big Big Big…I’m having a real dilemma trying to come up with a private industry you and Bongo haven’t accused of corruption and identified as enemy.

    Sooner or later, you lackey government employees not worthy of hire in “BIG” are going to have to produce something which adds to domestic production, or you’ll run out of other people’s money.

    Comprehend shill?

  34. Can Pay? = Take Money Via Normal Collection Procedures, But No Punishment
    ……Can’t Pay? = Send Bill and Lurk, But No Lien or Punishment

    Your “Can Pay” choice doesn’t fit the situation we’re talking about. It’s “Won’t Pay” that fits the case we’re talking about. And that normal collection procedure can only go forth “except as provided by paragraph (2)”, which says you can’t collect the penalty.

    You’re acting as though, you’re refusing to pay a tax and paragraph (2) exempts you from paying a penalty for your refusal to pay a tax. But it is not a tax in the first place. It is a penalty itself ….and therefore it is prohibited by paragraph (2). You’re also focusing on liens. The verbiage says any penalty. (It then specifically calls out liens.)

  35. so most folks like you will listen to the IRS commissioner and get worried. Rutherford explain that line!

    Yeah Alfie I didn’t state that very well. I meant to say that it is the job of the IRS commissioner to scare you into paying the penalty (or buying the insurance). One cannot expect him to say any differently. The Dem’s buried the non-penalty in the bill and then kept hush about it so that most folks would only get the mandate message, such as from the IRS commissioner and act accordingly.

  36. Alfie, you are right that I should not blow off the Massachusetts experience so blithely since it does resemble the Federal plan to some extent. I’ll have to research where they are similar and where they differ.

    Since we’re on the topic, how do you think Mitt Romney will be able to distance himself from the MA plan since he opposes the ACA?

  37. Ummm…I don’t think failure to include language counts as a “loophole.”

    Actually “LOL” it does, especially in the case of the article you cited. The law does not adequately specify “access” to insurance for children vs discrimination against current customers. That is the loophole Sibelius must fix. It is a loophole because the language does not adequately reflect the intent and insurance companies can use that inadequacy to their advantage.

  38. I guess bare titties supersede politics for even progressive men.

    I looked at the photo that accompanied the article and damn those women were pale. When I first saw the pic I said, “they’re not topless, they’ve got white shirts on”. Then I looked more carefully and realized that was skin. Damn, I know they get a lot of rain in Portland but aren’t there any tanning salons?

    P.S. For those who didn’t see the pic, it was taken from behind the women hence there were no “tittles” in view to help me discern that they did indeed have their shirts off.

  39. Oh BTW, Tex to use one of your fav words, when Sarah Palin says “Behind every successful man is a surprised woman”, is she being a misandrist?

    No man hating there – I think my wife said about the same thing when I made it to medical school at the age of 48. 🙂

    Of course, my wife also said about me one time after me playing Chatty Cathy like I have a bad habit of doing, that I should have been born a girl. 🙂 You’d like her a lot better than me “r”. She’s incredibly bright, incredibly dry, and possibly the only person in the world who can shut me up when she feels the need.

    How’d you like that nit wit idiot being enraged over men showing up to photograph them when topless? And her solution was next time she’d be more aggressive to stop the ogling? Now there’s a woman that is really confused about us pigs. Sounds like something that Ugly Kay broad would say. And since it was up in Maine, it probably was Ugly Kay leading the pack. Burnt lenses on the camera. Wasn’t her hometown Portland?

  40. Your “Can Pay” choice doesn’t fit the situation we’re talking about. It’s “Won’t Pay” that fits the case we’re talking about. And that normal collection procedure can only go forth “except as provided by paragraph (2)”, which says you can’t collect the penalty.

    Uh, “Can Pay” is equivalent to “Won’t Pay” under the logic chart. Did I make it too complicated? And paragraph (2) says, painfully clearly, that you can’t collect a penalty on the penalty, not that you can’t collect the penalty.

    Make sure you understand this: the act doesn’t say you can’t force people to pay, it only says you can’t use criminal courts, liens, or fines to make them pay.

    Read!! Read!! Read!!

  41. Make sure you understand this: the act doesn’t say you can’t force people to pay, it only says you can’t use criminal courts, liens, or fines to make them pay.

    Geoff, Well, without court, liens or fines there ain’t much left. The only thing left is indeed what Gorilla posted, namely pulling it out of your tax rebate … and what happens for those who are not getting a rebate … who still owe taxes?

    I think the best way to end this back and forth is to acknowledge that the gov’t has no idea how they’re going to get the money from you and the no penalty exception makes matters all the more ambiguous.

  42. The only thing left is indeed what Gorilla posted, namely pulling it out of your tax rebate … and what happens for those who are not getting a rebate … who still owe taxes?

    Other than, say, garnishing wages. Civil court. Tax court. Consider this statement from the IRS Commissioner:

    “Congress was very careful to make sure there was nothing too punitive in this bill.”

    Not “too punitive.”

    Now we’re back to where I was at at my first comment of this thread. Yes, the IRS will collect the money. Yes, their hands are tied on certain approaches to collecting the money, but they will strive to collect it using the approaches that have not been prohibited.

    Read the law. It’s all right there.

  43. Rutherford,

    On the bigger picture, I think we’re on the same side, but I also think you’re wasting your time on a misreading of this detail.

    The government assesses plenty of NON-criminal penalties in all other walks of life. It has plenty of NON-criminal courts in which it assesses these penalties, and NON-criminal procedures for collecting the penalties.

    You don’t have to be a flaming libertarian or Tea Partier to realize that a prohibition against criminal prosecution weakens the government’s enforcement ability in the most extreme cases, but it hardly makes the law unenforceable. In fact the law could be enforced quite effectively against anyone who is subject to tax withholding (for example), without involving criminal law in any way. This is so obvious, it should be an automatically agreed-upon point for people on both sides of the larger debate.

    I hope to God there are at least 10 things about this law that are much better arguments than the “no criminal penalties” argument, otherwise we have really spent a lot of anguish for very little or no gain.

    David

  44. Geoff, Well, without court, liens or fines there ain’t much left.

    BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

    *giggle. snort. chuckle*

    BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

    Rutherford, do you have any idea what regular civil collections process can do to you, let alone how IRS garnishments can pull your pants down around your ankles and make you bleed? And the damage a judgment does to your credit rating? You do not want, R. Really.

    Sometimes, you are so thick, I forget we’re talking to an adult.

  45. Klein: This
    Romney: His only chance is to play the “I was against mandates” card and the “I couldn’t imagine the increased costs” one. The first is very true the latter would require major spin since he unlike Obama,Reid and pelosi won’t be allowed to get away with that one.
    My final word on the there is no mandate thing. If you read the law it mentions Subchapter B Chapter 68 regards getting fines etc. If one reads the US Code you’ll find there is indeed some teeth.

  46. NY Times – Mine Rescue Continues as Owner Faces Questions
    There were no signs of life from the four people still missing, as the mine owner’s safety record left officials suggesting that Monday’s explosion might have been preventable.

    USA Today – Mine had string of safety lapses before explosion
    The West Virginia mine where 25 people died Monday has the worst safety record of any underground coal mine in its county, federal documents show.

    CNN – Mine deaths spark criticism of operator’s record
    The deaths of at least 25 workers in a West Virginia coal mine this week have turned a harsh spotlight on the safety record of the mine’s owner, which has paid record fines for safety and environmental violations.

    The Herald-Dispatch – MARSH FORK, W.Va.
    Donald Fitzwater was a heavy equipment mechanic at an area mountaintop mine site and with his emotions also included some anger alleged, non-union miners are punished when they complain about poor working conditions. He supports stiffer penalties and absolute shutdowns of mines when inspectors find significant problems. James Bowe, 43, agreed. He worried investigators will eventually blame Monday’s explosion on an individual miner, instead of forcing industry leaders to take responsibility. The lifelong Boone County resident alleged previous problems at the mining site were not appropriately addressed. “What happened? Why didn’t they fix it? They’ve had all of these violations, and all of this stuff,” Bowe said. “Why ain’t they going in and doing something?”

    I do not blindly assume businesses always act in the most humane manner towards it’s employees. I note the long track record of violations, violations that many other US mining companies do not have. If they had 600 violations in the past 18 months, and other mines in the area had operated profitabily and completely safely. you’ve got to wonder: to what standard is Blankenship holding himself? The Bush administration promoted the ideal that businesses could police themselves called “voluntary compliance.” It is truly sad that Republicans put profit above morality; but, I am sure that we would have been called “unAmerican” back in the Bush years for thinking we should treat our people better than China does.

  47. Yeah Wally,

    Those UAW workers pulling the straight Democratic lever, who didn’t bother keeping the maintenance on TWA 800 and let the electrical wiring be exposed on the center tank on a “flying” 747, sure loved those fellow Americans, didn’t they?

    Unfortunately for you Wally, the serial rapist Bill Clinton was President at the time. Guess he loved business too?

    Yeah, I’ve seen the quality of “union” work at American Airlines, McDonnell Douglas, GM, Delta, United, Chrysler, United Steel, Ford, textile, NEA, etc…bankrupt, going bankrupt, filed for bankruptcy, out of business, moved overseas. Like your employment history AWOL, piss poor performance. 😈

    “If you can’t kill the customer, kill the business” in the Curator union motto. I suppose you never figured out that most U.S. citizens don’t care to be union employees, hey Curator? Here, check it out from a flaming lib who actually studied the issue:

    http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=1011

  48. I hope to God there are at least 10 things about this law that are much better arguments than the “no criminal penalties” argument, otherwise we have really spent a lot of anguish for very little or no gain.

    David, welcome to the blog. I really didn’t mean to imply that “no criminal penalties” was something good about the law. I was simply reporting O’Donnell’s findings to pop the conservative “sky is falling” prognostications.

    There has certainly been enough reasonable debate on this thread to suggest that O’Donnell’s conclusion was overstated. I wish I had access to the man himself to challenge his assertion based on the feedback I’ve gotten in this thread.

    Notice to all who linger here: If you happen to stumble upon any article directly calling O’Donnell’s claim bunk, please post it since his assessment has been ignored by the MSM as far as I can tell.

  49. I have to agree with David – if this report is correct and the mandate is unenforceable, we are in a worse situation than we were before. Once it gets around that the mandate isn’t actually a mandate we will have the nightmare scenario of people not buying insurance until they are sick. Insurance companies will not be able to turn them away because pre-existing conditions must now be covered. This will indeed cause premiums to rise and insurance companies to go bankrupt. The only reason the mandate was there to begin with is because it is necessary if pre-existing conditions are to be covered.

    I tend to think that O’Donnell report must be bunk – it indeed hasn’t been picked up in the MSM, and to be honest I like to think my party is too smart to put in a non-mandate mandate. They know the consequences of doing so would be disastrous.

    — hp

  50. Actually, Tex, when it comes to charitable giving, Obama looks like Mother Teresa compared to Biden. And quite frankly, I think 6% of your income going to charity is reasonably generous.

  51. HP (and David) clearly penalties have been limited … the legislative verbiage is pretty clear on that. Where O’Donnell may have stretched the truth (and therefore me along with him) is that this amounts to no mandate at all.

    The question remains, are the penalties that DO exist sufficient to motivate everyone to buy insurance? I think the jury may still be out on that.

    Alfie, thanks for the Klein link. I shall read it after lunch.

  52. Hippie, I have a question for you and your beloved libbie blogger Nate Silver, who unlike you, I don’t find the least bit objective.

    Last year, I did a rough estimate (but it’s close) that approximately 1 in every 2 dollars my wife and I make is used to pay for some type of tax, federal and state, or fees including property tax – that does not include FICA.

    In addition, because of the poor situation of our local public school system which is atrocious (as most are), my wife and I paid over $270K over 14 years to finance our children’s K-12 education, so we obtained little personal benefit from local educational dollars. You can make the argument that we do benefit from other children’s education, but as you admitted the other day that the pool of qualified students is getting smaller. Most public education high school students I meet can’t make change with out the help of an electronic register.

    When I was working, my wife and I gave approximately 10% of our take home pay to some type of charity or church.

    So, that now puts us at approximately 44% of monies earned that we use as savings, living expenses, insurance home and car, college educations, auto, etc…

    I would like you to give me your estimate of what you think a fair tax ratio is.

    Let’s use an income of $100,000 a year for a nice round number. Can you give me what you feel would make an equitable tax amount at that income? Include Federal, state, and local in your estimate, including personal property taxes.

  53. Tex, as you rail against unions, might I ask you two questions? (Well one is more a comment than a question.)

    1. Do you really believe corporations have evolved to such a magnanimous position that workers no longer need any protection or bargaining power against management?

    2. I spent 24 years at a non-union company. They were outright paranoid about unions … scared to death one might start. BUT in the early days of my time there, they were so good to their employees that there was no chance in hell a union could get started. But for the statistically typical percentage of malcontents, everyone was pretty happy.

    Then, said company decided that periodic layoffs was the way they were going to run their business. While they were at it, they slowed promotions to a snail’s pace. They fooled with the retirement plans. They took away most events that improved morale, but involved “too much discretionary spending”. There is now a toothless union presence at the company. They have zero bargaining power. Quite frankly, I find it disgusting. The company in pursuit, first of survival, and then large profits, abandoned its commitment to the employees. There appears to be no recourse. This scenario doesn’t bother you in the least?

    Before you accuse me of painting a negative picture because I got laid off, I assure you they started down this path before I got laid off and I didn’t like it then. In fact, sadly I was party to it as a Manager who had to execute layoffs. Sometimes I view my own layoff as a case of “what comes around goes around”. I can think of at least a couple of my former employees who would dance the jig to find out I got canned …. because let’s face it, I turned their life upside down in the same way mine was.

    I wouldn’t be so quick to dis unions Tex. I don’t doubt some of what you say about them, but the “corporate animal” can be a sick rabid bastard that needs supervision.

  54. Rutherford, I’d ask you my hypothetical addressed to Hippie as well.

    Conceptually, I have no problems with unions. If I thought their purpose was simply to balance the interest of employee, management and shareholder, I would have no argument. It’s the reality of what they have become I have a problem with, as I have personal experience in dealings with unions.

    Would you like me to give you a personal example of “union efficiency” in action? Let me explain…

    ———————————–

    Six weeks into my first job with a defense contractor during a recession in 1981-82. I still feel that one worse than this one. By the grace of God, I was able to get a job for a defense contractor in my home town. The money was pretty good for a new college graduate.

    One day, I made the mistake of moving a printer from one end of a room to another which I then connected to a different computer. The was a CAD station, was 1982 and before the days of networked printing. The printer weighed approximately 25-30 lbs. I would guess. I was 22 years old.

    My actions were witnessed by a union steward.

    A grievance was filed because I had done something declared a union responsibility. I was escorted to HR the next day, had to attend a two day disciplinary class complete with instruction by HR in conjunction with the union steward browbeating, my egregious act of disobedience was noted, signed and placed in my personal file, and I was instructed that any further mistake declared “union work” by me without their written permission would result in my immediate dismissal.

    Six months later, the UAW went on strike for better wages. Office help (like me) were assigned to the floor. Don’t ever fly a DC-8 as Tex helped install the engines long ago. It is still a miracle that one hasn’t fallen from the sky. But I digress.

    The weekend before they left, threats were made on anyone crossing the union lines as scabs. These fine union employees, only concerned with safety of employees and consumers as Wally attests, stuck rags in the fuel lines of DC-8’s, cut electrical bundles leading to the hydraulics, and other assorted “mischief.” One office worker was seriously hurt when warning lights never appeared in the cockpit and lost his right hand in the process – as 3000lbs of hydraulic pressure close a slat on the wing.

    I worked double shifts for 16 weeks, including Thanksgiving and Christmas day, leaving behind the suit and dressing in blue collar garb – all this during my first year after graduation.

    After 16 weeks of intense negotiation (I guess), a scab’s house being burned to the ground with his kids in it (who escaped), several broken car windows and daily personal harassment, the strike was over. These angelic union saints came back to the line making less than originally offered before the strike. Three years later, the muti-billion dollar company near bankruptcy was sold to Boeing. I was long gone by then.

    Oh yes, I loved unions after that. So maybe you can see why I am not completely convinced like Wally that unions work in favor of all our interests.

    So I ask you Rutherford. Can you give me an example of a line of business in America today that is unionized and classified as best of practice?

  55. Tex said: Conceptually, I have no problems with unions. If I thought their purpose was simply to balance the interest of employee, management and shareholder, I would have no argument. It’s the reality of what they have become I have a problem with, as I have personal experience in dealings with unions.

    Tex, you and I are actually in agreement on this. On paper unions are a great idea. In practice, there is a lot to be desired. I have experienced scenarios similar to the one you describe. I was at a professional conference once and plugged a slide projector into the wall outlet. I didn’t even work for the conference center – but I was still taken to task because apparently a union electrician was required to do that job. Sheesh…

    But – what is the alternative? Places where there are no unions (or no government regulations) inevitably have sweatshop-style working conditions – which I find morally repugnant.

    So – what is the solution?

    — hp

  56. Just like there are good and bad companies there are good and bad unions.
    I personally believe the balance sheet on unions is that they trend bad. Case in point the breaking news on pensions.
    In the USA people need to dedicate themselves to be good workers,employers and citizens. part of that inevitably requires workers to insist on safe working conditions and for consumers to accept the cost for that. (this is but one example you could look at wages and bennies too)As citizens we must insist that we don’t have to compete against illegal laborers or illegal labor practices. This issue imo is where the center right shines but is unfortunately thumbed.

  57. This issue imo is where the center right shines but is unfortunately thumbed.

    Alfie, the center right is dead until the likes of Bachmann, Palin and the unruly parts of the Tea Party disappear. I suspect that when we get right down to it most of the folks on the Rutherford Lawson Roundtable are centrists who have not realized how the GOP has skewed far right leaving them empty handed come November.

  58. Can you give me an example of a line of business in America today that is unionized and classified as best of practice?

    Well, no, I can’t but that means little because I’m not well enough versed on the subject. Curator possibly could.

    I have no problem with strikes (except where public safety is concerned — police, fire, nurses, etc.) I do have a major problem with thugs and to the degree that unions encourage thuggish behavior, I am in full agreement with you.

  59. As citizens we must insist that we don’t have to compete against illegal laborers or illegal labor practices. This issue imo is where the center right shines but is unfortunately thumbed.

    Alfie, I think the center-left might largely agree on this too. I know all of you think of me as some far-left socialist – but to be honest I am only a bit left of center. On social issues I am probably pretty far left – but on economic issues I am pretty close to center.

    Here is my problem: In the absence of unions and/or government regulations, “bad citizen” corporations can out-compete “good-citizen” corporations because they can sell the product cheaper. Wal Mart is a perfect example. They are able to sell their product cheaper because (among other things) they don’t pay a living wage. Thus, they out-compete “ethical” business who pay their employees more.

    I am not sure what the solution is. I don’t think unions work very well because they tend to encourage laziness. Government regulations can work better – but they can also fail miserably.

    The best solution would be for people to wise up and refuse to support corporations who engage in unethical business practices. Unfortunately, it is damned hard to educate Americans on this issue. We also end up with a “tragedy of the commons” situation in which individuals do what is best for them personally in the short-term (shopping WalMart) with little understanding of the long-term consequences (ethical businesses go out of business).

    — hp

  60. Tex, regarding your tax question to HP, it’s hard to miss what you never had in the first place. I roughly estimate 45% or so of our gross household income goes to some sort of tax. Now, if I were used to keeping 90% of it, I might be pissed off.

    What does bother me is the fed tax on lump sums which comes damn close to 50% as far as I can tell.

    I still say it’s easier for someone to take a 40% hit at $100,000.00 then it is for someone making $25,000.00. That’s why I favor a progressive tax.

  61. I just read Ezra Klein’s article (thanks Alfie). So let’s see, while Ezra doesn’t state it as emphatically as O’Donnell does, here is what we have:

    No Mandate
    —————–
    Ezra Klein
    Lawrence O’Donnell

    Mandate that will bring your pants down around your ankles
    ———————————————————————————
    The Rutherford Lawson Conservative Roundtable
    No respected source within the MSM

    Jury is still out for me. 😉

  62. On social issues I am probably pretty far left – but on economic issues I am pretty close to center. — HP

    Ahhh, my brother from another mother. Ditto. Contrary to popular belief I am for from socialist …. I like money and I like profits. I don’t like abuse.

  63. Oh yes, I loved unions after that. So maybe you can see why I am not completely convinced like Wally that unions work in favor of all our interests.

    I never said unions work in favor of all our interests. Certainly not all the time, but I think, with respect especially to workplace safety and other examples, they are the best at what they do. Which was my point all along. Would a union at Massey had forced management to adhere to stringent safety standard? Would those miner be alive today if allowed to unionize?

    I worked for a defense contractor back in 1997-1999 at Peterson AFB. A huge snow storm hit and we had 4 foot of snow on the ground. The governor fricken closed the state the roads where that bad. There was a supply worker who was on shift and had to man the MICAP desk 24/7 per the government contract. Since nobody else could make it in due to the roads, the base was closed anyhow, he ended up staying at work all weekend. This was cleared through his immediate supervisor (retired Army), who then refused to authorize to pay the guy any overtime. This retired E8 from the Army was the biggest jackass I’ve seen but the supply guy filed a grievance through our union and won his overtime pay.

  64. Hippie,

    But – what is the alternative? Places where there are no unions (or no government regulations) inevitably have sweatshop-style working conditions – which I find morally repugnant.

    I’m not sure that is true – and certainly not true in white collar America, where few if any are for union.

    Many manufacturing plants aren’t union. Several of the domesticated “foreign car” manufacturers aren’t union and are much sought out.

    But perhaps the best example I can come up with is personal. Through college, I worked for a large manufacturer that produced heat exchangers and valves – summers and weekends and back breaking work. Most of the fitters, welders and draftsman had come from union shops and actually took hourly pay cuts to work in non union shops. They said they would never go back to a union shop. And that was in 1979-1982. Unions have certainly digressed since that time.

    So I don’t buy without unions, places turn into sweat shops.

  65. I still say it’s easier for someone to take a 40% hit at $100,000.00 then it is for someone making $25,000.00. That’s why I favor a progressive tax.

    What incentive is there then to educate yourself, take on debt from expected higher wages, then find a larger and larger chunk is going for someone else’s benefit?

    Again, I think your approach is not only unfair Rutherford (and I doubt you’d be so generous if you were making a large wage), but self-defeating.

    And that is exactly the reason I left medical school, and exactly the reason you will be seeing lower wage doctors like primary care, internal medicine, minor emergency, psychiatry, and geriatric doctors leaving the business soon. You simply can not attract help anymore at the wages x the hours worked. And the only thing that can happen in substitute are technicians to then provide service You ready to see a nurse or P.A. in substitute Rutherford? Because with Bongo care, that is exactly what is coming down the pike. It was already happening before, and now will accelerate.

    Yes, doctors demand a higher wage and most make six figures. But they also were the best and brightest of their class, dedicated eleven years without real income as sacrifice, and took on substantial debt in doing so.

    And from personal experience, I can assure you that medical school is a bitch. You eat, sleep and breathe classwork. 😉

  66. HP for what it’s worth Walmart is the anti Christ so in my world we would rail against Walmart not only for employment/competition practices but because the little smiley face predominantly sells Chinese shit for 2 cents less than anyone else. Do we need to start on what I feel about china?
    Rutherford you were doing so good
    To say no credible entity has spoken out against the mandate but to call Klein and O’Donnell respected and above reproach?!?!?! WTF?!?!?!?!
    I can’t buy produce from you brother because the apples and oranges thing just not working at Lawson Farm

  67. Dang Rutherford, how in the world can you support these dumb ass PuffHo people?

    Listen to this Lisa Douglas sounding dope. Huffington goes completely off topic, groveling on about torture (which by the way, Americans overwhelming don’t give a damn about contrary to the circles you run it and in fact, love a good waterboarding for Khalid) about what Rudy G. was brought in to discuss, and then gets hammered for her troubles. This hag is so stupid, it’s embarrassing.

    And by the way, while Rudy G. wasn’t my man for President, I can personally attest between 1993 and 1998, he completely transformed NYC from a stinking shit hole to America’s #1 city again. He didn’t just do a good job as mayor – he did an incredible job as mayor of NYC.

    That is not even debatable.

    Rutherford, some of these people you support are absolutely brain dead.

  68. Rutherford,

    I confess I did not watch the video. I often don’t have the patience to watch videos and listen to recordings when the essential information seems to be available in print.

    I’m inclined to believe the people who say the law has teeth. Just not long enough teeth to actually throw people in prison. Hard to think of cases where someone was thrown in prison merely for failing to pay a fee, though, in any case, under any US law.

    I do have a hunch, however–and I’m not a lawyer, so take this for what it’s worth (not much!)–that the prohibition of criminal prosecution is designed to help the law pass constitutional muster. Something very much along the lines of the idea that started this thread of the debate, namely, that in this way nobody is “forced” to pay for insurance they don’t want, and therefore their rights (in theory) have not been infringed. Of course even if this was the motivation for the “no criminal penalty” language, it doesn’t mean the strategem would work; but just because something might not work does not prevent someone from trying it.

    A more interesting thing buried in the bill is this:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601202&sid=aWaqUjSAjgAg

  69. Sorry, contrary to what Rudy G. was brought in to discuss.

    Rutherford, I’ll criticize Sarah Palin for ignorance when you’ll admit these media whores you get your information from are absolutely stupid. And they are stupid.

  70. Hippie once pondered if certain happenings could be a back door to the public option. I now put forth this conspiracy theory. O’Donnell and Klein have actually uncovered the Lefts motive and blew the plan.
    No mandate enforcement will cause insurance companies to go under,deficits soar and every one else gets buried in premium overloads and soaring health care costs.
    Then single payer will be launched to save the day.

  71. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Rubin-Prince-pressed-on-roles-apf-521735539.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

    Any bets that 7-10 years from now, after being called the “GREATEST PRESIDENT EVAH” by the toe-sucking Left, that Bomba will be making similar excuses about how didn’t know this, and he didn’t know that?

    Remember how the rubes were telling us just 4-5 years ago how Rubin was the greatest Treasury Secretary ever and financial guru?

    Oops…

  72. David, your Bloomberg article was interesting, You do know how the right will spin this once they get hold of it? They will say the government will dictate what drugs can be prescribed. Of course, the article does not say that but that won’t stop the inventors of “death panels” from making stuff up out of whole cloth. 🙂

  73. Memo to Tex, I didn’t fully follow your comment regarding HuffPo (was there a link missing?) but if it had to do with the Rudy/Arianna face off on Morning Joe the other day, guess what? Huffington lost that debate hands down. She threw totally irrelevant crap at Rudy and looked like a rank amateur. It’s not the first time I’ve seen that.

    Huffington used to be a conservative and I think as a liberal she’s a bit of a poser. She yells about wages, but does not pay most of her bloggers. She wants everyone to put their money in small banks but I can bet dollars to donuts, her millions are still in some mega-bank (or perhaps off shore where she doesn’t pay taxes on it).

    I enjoy her publication but I think the woman is at best a hypocrite and a poor advocate for liberal causes.

    P.S. How do you know “first hand” that Rudy cleaned up New York? I agree with you that he did, but how do you know this “first hand”? Did you live among us pagan Northerners for a while? 😉

  74. Tex and Alfie, I wasn’t ignoring your tax article … just hadn’t gotten to it yet. From the article:

    Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.

    1) You can thank Bush for making life easier for the rich at the expense of the poor.

    2) You now have to admit that Obama did cut taxes for the middle class. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t say, on the one hand the Obama middle class tax cut is a myth (as I’ve seen written in these threads before) and then use the tax cut to gripe.

    3) The article did not say 47% of people are tax cheats. If someone can find a perfectly legal reason to not have to pay Fed income tax, more power to them. But yes, I understand … this feeds into your aversion for paying someone else’s way.

    Oh as a side note …. Tex you theorized that I believed in a progressive tax because I was not making that much money. News flash .. I got laid off at a 6 figure salary and I believed in the progressive tax back then also. (Second side note but not new news to Tex who know corp America: when you get laid off from a six figure salary, you can basically kiss the six figures goodbye. Nearly impossible to jump back into the work force at that level.)

  75. call Klein and O’Donnell respected and above reproach?!?!?! WTF?!?!?!?!

    LOL Klein seems pretty stable to me, Alfie. O’Donnell on the other hand, earns his nickname “Crazy Larry” deservedly. That’s one reason I love him so.

    I first became a big fan of him when he was on McLaughlin Group and he called out Romney for his Mormonism … a religion with a racial track record too shameful for any decent human being to swallow. John McLaughlin never had him on the show again. Classic!

  76. P.S. How do you know “first hand” that Rudy cleaned up New York? I agree with you that he did, but how do you know this “first hand”? Did you live among us pagan Northerners for a while?

    Right in the heart of Times Square, one a month for a week at a time for five years. 1993, it was a 3rd world zoo. Last time I left, safer than any big city I’ve been in. Really amazing turnaround.

    Haven’t been back since, so I have no idea if the cleaning up of 42nd street, squeegee wipers gone, and skanks walking Broadway is still the rule.

    Fascinating city – best and worst of everything.

    P.S. – Obama’s tax breaks were a joke, and in fact if they don’t carry thru with the real Tax breaks Bush implemented, kiss that goodbye and more. But here’s the real kicker – fees and services continue to escalate, so I’m not even buying anybody received a tax break yet. Worse, Volcker has now said the only place left to tax is the middle class. Wait until they propose the VAT and watch people scream.

    Saying you were for progressive tax rate back then is meaningless – that could mean one more nickel. I wanted you to answer on a $100K salary, give me a hard dollar figure of what you think fair in the way of taxes.

  77. I spent the entire last week in Times Square for the National Model United Nations conference at the Marriott Marquis. No squeegee wipers, no sex shops, no hookers.

    I have to admit that there were plenty of skanks. But those were the college kids attending the conference, so that doesn’t count!

  78. Crazy Larry was on McLaughlin numerous times and teamed with the equally insufferable Eleanor Clift, who looked like a mole — the backyard kind. Neither have made much of a name for themselves in the way of politics as both equally inane and comical, but I understand hack O’Donnell made a fortune spooning Hollywood. Hope I’m not making that up.

    What racial bigotry of the Mormons? How you can call any denomination or religion racist after excusing the black liberal theology of Trinity United Church of Christ, or virtually any “Black Church” in America is truly an amazement – the gospel of hatin’ pinkie.

    Rutherford, try for once and take your blinders off and and recognize there isn’t a more hate filled, racist bunch of race hustling, race pimping rubes than 90% of the black “churches” in America today. If you don’t walk the line, you’re Uncle Tom.

    Good Lawd, most “black churches” specialize in victimization and whining. About half of them are illiterate to boot.

  79. I spent the entire last week in Times Square for the National Model United Nations conference at the Marriott Marquis.

    Stayed there myself several times – how’d you like the $45 breakfast of small glass of orange juice and burnt toast? That was their specialty – screwing folks on the corporate dole.

    The elevators were cool, though. Isn’t that the one that has the revolving tower? I was in it, but I can’t remember if that was part of the hotel, or not.

  80. Not sure if this has been covered in the current discussion, but it seems to still be up in the air as to whether or not the IRS has any teeth to enforce the mandate….

    At least as far as IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman is concerned.

    Individuals who don’t purchase health insurance may lose their tax refunds according to IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. After acknowledging the recently passed health-care bill limits the agency’s options for enforcing the individual mandate, Shulman told reporters that the most likely way to penalize individuals that don’t comply is by reducing or confiscating their tax refunds.

    Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, Shulman downplayed the IRS’s role in enforcing the recent overhaul of the health insurance industry by claiming the agency would not aggressively target individuals who don’t purchase coverage. He noted that the health-care bill expressly forbids the agency from freezing bank accounts, seizing assets or pursuing criminal charges, but when pressed said the IRS would most likely use tax refund offsets to penalize those that don’t comply with the mandate. The IRS uses refund offsets to collect from individuals that owe the federal government a delinquent debt.

  81. Tex, I lived on Mickey D’s across the street. The only $$$ that place got out of me was whatever my university paid them for me to stay there.

    Can’t speak to the elevator tower. I was too busy babysitting college kids. But the elevator system is so bad at handling crowds that it was literally easier to take the stairs.

  82. mmmm some red meat to chew on…..

    In no particular order. So Teddy K wasn’t the only one to hypocritically defame a religion? Good to see multiple layers of leftdom play that.

    My paranoia was a question,an intellectual curiosity. I sincerely hope it will not prove a premonition.

    On the tax issue. I’ve shared my view before Rutherford and you even showed them some props so please bear with me. I think you can’t have half the population sitting in the car and the other half,in reality less than half trying to push the car up the hill. So to my previous positions of being pro VAT,pro flat tax and pro less taxation on savings & investments add this; I believe the AMT should be aimed at the lower earners not the high.You can have zero still although I think that’s silly but under NO CIRCUMSTANCES can you go to the plus side.

    And lastly the health care issue. I for one find the article interesting as well as the legislation. I also find it will not save money anytime soon and must be seen as a tool for future and inevitable rationing. With that said I also find the new layer of bureaucracy kind of stupid and wasteful. The PPAC already has parts in it that looks to the AHRQ to serve a similiar purpose. That entity is what already backs up Obamas red pill blue pill thing.
    I don’t like this thing for a couple of reasons.

  83. We need another thread. Health care reform is old.

    How about presidential authorization for assassination of an American citizen by U.S. forces? Sounds kinda sexy.

    Actually turns my stomach.

    Washington Post has the story..

    A Muslim cleric tied to the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner has become the first U.S. citizen added to a list of suspected terrorists the CIA is authorized to kill, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

    Where are the Liberals and progressives who decried the abuses of power and assaults on the constitution committed by Bush, and who are now standing silent when those same abuses and assaults, and worse ones, are being committed by a Democrat?

    The issue is the ordering of extrajudicial killing; of execution without the filing of charges and a trial by a jury of his peers, with an opportunity to confront witness and to protest his own innocence.

    “tied to the attempted bombing” is bullshit. Should the President be ordering the killing of an American citizen without a trial?

  84. Oh yeah I just reread the bit about the Obama tax cut. I don’t deny Obama coughed up $$ to 95% of Americans. My problem is where he got the money actually affects 100% of Americans so it is an issue.

  85. Curator I posted on that in some form as well as the mine story. To say the least we have different takes on it.Hell even R has stated we should whack the guy. mmmm interesting.

  86. Alfie@

    This American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done. To decree someone’s guilt as a terrorist, much less an American citizen, and order him killed without due process is very bad for our society.

    Back during the primaries Obama said the President lacks the power merely to detain U.S. citizens without charges. Now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges. This is absurd.

  87. On one hand I appreciate you holding Obama to something and holding onto your own ideals. On the other hand I think this pending incident shows that a candidate lives in a different world than a leader does. For the yemeni cleric I think he has forfeited his citizenry but also feel assassinating him, especially on Yemeni soil will only hurt us.

  88. I’m actually shocked that Curator hasn’t applied his typical double standard. Good for you Curator.

    Unfortunately, as you and I always disagree, for once I’ll stick with Obama and say “correct decision.”

    Once it is determined you’re a radical Muslim like the Muslim cleric, and this isn’t the first charge against him as we have plenty of proof the coward incites jihad, then give him one opportunity to turn himself to be transported back to the states. If not, kill the pig and make it brutal. Then nail his broken body over the door of his mosque.

  89. “Back during the primaries Obama said….”

    …a lot of things that had an expiration date of Nov. 4, 2009.

    Haven’t you learned that yet?

  90. I must congratulate Curator on sticking to his guns and ideals.

    I think you’re a fucking idiot, but applaud you just the same.

    I hope they get him, and I hope it hurts…

  91. Look the idiot has repeatedly issued statements inciting violence against his fellow Americans, but so has half the Tea party Tim McVeigh wannabes. But al-Awlaki’s American citizenship entitles him to due process of law should the government seek to deprive him of life, liberty or property, or don’t you believe in our Constitution?

    and this isn’t the first charge against him as we have plenty of proof the coward incites jihad

    We have plenty of proof of Tea Party idiots inciting revolution against its government. We have seen no proof of his guilt of anything since what our government has is “secret”.

    Nowhere has the Obama administration explained the legal basis for revoking al-Awlaki’s most basic constitutional right.

    Not even John Yoo was this bad. To kill a US citizen based on nothing more than the government says so based on evidence we or the accused cannot see.

  92. Even if they had some process…any process to show evidence in a court of law or military tribunal to apply qualifying information.

    Anwar al-Alwaki is an American Muslim and a regional commander for al-Qaeda.

    Anwar al-Alwaki sermons have been attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers and the accused Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, whose actions he praised after said shootings.

    Anwar al-Alwaki recruited and trained terrorist Abdulmutallab of the thwarted Northwest Airlines attack of Christmas 2009 over Detroit.

    We hereby convict Anwar al-Alwaki for an act of treason against the United States, and his citizenship is hereby revoked.

    NOW YOU CAN KILL HIM!!

  93. I knew that for every one reasonable statement made, Curator was soon revert back to the norm – abject stupidity for a period of at least three months. Must have had another miserable day at work.

    Curator, you may be the most disillusioned, most dishonest, most unsophisticated freak I’ve read here. And some of them I’ve read have been pretty sad cases.

    Seriously boy, if there is anybody on this board that actually comes across as a Timothy McVeigh wannabee, it’s you.

    Ex-military, atheist, left military disillusioned and on bad note, humorless, and paranoid. Except you don’t have the balls or the smarts McVeigh had. 🙄

  94. Curator,

    Being tried and convicted for treason, and then executed offends you?

    Well hell no, it doesn’t offend me. I’m the one who thinks you ought to join the Imam. This is my hope for you to expire.

    Given the chance, I’d be your executioner and nobody, and I mean nobody, would miss you either. Give me the opportunity, and I’ll be merciful. 🙂

    As I noted from above, you’re the one with all the characteristics of McVeigh, minus the balls and the brains. It will be the only way you make a name for yourself in this lifetime. Go for pussy!

    Is there anything more UnAmerican than praising a terrorist?

    Yes…allowing you to procreate.

  95. Dang, Curator, I just posted a new article and forgot all about our new “kill the cleric” policy.

    I know I’ll disappoint you but I’m all for killing the traitor bastard. I didn’t like him to begin with and when I found out he was an American, I disliked him even more.

    What puzzles me is how our plan to take this guy out got in the papers. Dumb dumb dumb.

  96. I must say Curator makes me ashamed of my position. If one thing separates the liberal from the modern day conservative it is a conscience. Still, I don’t retract my comment. The Yemen cleric needs to be stopped by any means necessary.

    I’d respect him more if he put an explosive down his own pants and flew over here. That would show he has some balls he’s willing to blow to smithereens for his cause. Instead, he’d rather have an unstable US army medic and a poor kid who really just needed to get laid, to do his dirty work.

  97. LOL more stereotyping from Tex.

    Tex, I’m under the distinct impression that a sizable number of “black churches” are your good old fashioned Baptist variety. There are very few Rev Wrights out there. You’re worse than Crazy Larry.

    As for Mormons, they only changed their view on blacks when their federal tax exemptions were challenged. Like Cyndi Lauper sings, “Money Changes Everything”

  98. Rutherford never be ashamed of your position. You expend too much passion on your positions to ever feel shame. You’re not wrong either. Curator alludes to a utopia that can’t exist in a world of Realpolitik.
    Sadly Rutherford and I say this as someone who enjoys a good sermon,there are too many clergy types that are more like Wright and worse and they come in every shade and color.
    And the biggest point. I obviously take offense to the thought that conservatives lack conscience. I’d need a mile of thread or bandwidth unavailable to me to tell you how your statement is incorrect.

  99. Rutherford,

    There’s some wonderful black Baptist preachers – Voddie Baucham being one which you never bothered to listen. You wouldn’t like him because he would tell you the truth about yourself, and you can’t handle that and the fact he’s way beyond you. 😉

    But you are way wrong about that being the rule. Black Baptist Churches are a gathering place the worst of the race pimping, black racists. Where do you think Rev. Jeremiah, Rev. Jessie, Julian Bond and most of the hustlers came from?

    Times have changed much since MLK I’m afraid, including many of the charlatans and leeches from King’s own legacy.

  100. Alfie, the “conservatives have no conscience” was indeed a cheap shot and of course I know better. I would say the conscience of the conservative is harder to discern as they tend to believe in “tough love” and don’t seem to show much compassion. Of course, another generalization but that’s inevitable if we’re engaged in group characterization.

  101. Black Baptist Churches are a gathering place the worst of the race pimping, black racists.

    And this observation comes from where? How many black churches have you attended? How many of your religious black friends have informed you of this?

    It’s an interesting conclusion on your part. Where is God’s hand in all this? How can so many places of worship of the Christian faith be breeding grounds for hatred? Are you now saying the only legitimate place of worship is the white Christian church?

  102. I would say the conscience of the conservative is harder to discern as they tend to believe in “tough love” and don’t seem to show much compassion.

    Read the first 5 chapters of George Lakoff’s Moral Politics. I think he does a great job of laying out the fundamental differences between liberal and conservative forms of compassion and political philosophy. After those chapters, however, he loses traction quickly.

    He is, by they way, a Berkeley professor and member of a very liberal think tank, so I’m not trying to foist a conservative off on you.

  103. And this observation comes from where? How many black churches have you attended? How many of your religious black friends have informed you of this?

    This observation comes from discernment of how they carry themselves outside their congregation, or by viewing their “sermons.” You have heard of discernment? Need I attend a radical mosque to understand hate, or can I simply discern by watching them kill innocents? My “black friends”, who I actually just call “real Christians” or brother’s in Christ not concerning myself with their color as you measure each and every segment, say as much.

    And God’s hands? Actually God’s hedge – removed.

    It’s an interesting conclusion on your part. Where is God’s hand in all this? How can so many places of worship of the Christian faith be breeding grounds for hatred? Are you now saying the only legitimate place of worship is the white Christian church?

  104. Geoff,

    Without familiarizing myself with your suggestion, here is my observation of the differences. Though I am not capable of reading “the heart”, here is where liberal compassion falls short IMHO.

    It never remedies removing the problem. And leaving one in poverty, or spiritual bankruptcy, or dependency is not compassion – it is compounding the problem, no matter their good intent.

    And with men like Obama, I question the intent as I find his objective to rule, not govern. And it is much easier to rule with great dependency in place.

  105. Without familiarizing myself with your suggestion,

    Here’s a really brief rundown: Lakoff begins by visiting the liberal generalization that conservatives lack compassion. He notes that that’s easy to disprove – conservatives donate more to charitable causes, and never object to relief efforts aimed at disaster victims. And yet, they hate welfare, which seems completely contradictory to liberals. Why?

    He then goes on to say that conservatives’ philosophy is based on moral strength, while liberals’ philosophy is based on moral empathy. I won’t try to go into that here: there’s a [not particularly great, but convenient] summary at here. Here’s the intro to the article:

    …conservatives and liberals hold two different conceptual models of morality. Conservatives have a Strict Father morality in which people are made good through self-discipline and hard work. Liberals have a Nurturant Parent morality which sees people as something to be cared for and assisted.

  106. I would say the conscience of the conservative is harder to discern as they tend to believe in “tough love” and don’t seem to show much compassion.

    And here, I was getting ready to suggest that this encapsulates the left’s thinking on the subject because they are so wedded to the idea that compassion has to be expressed by government as a reflection of their will rather than by the action of individuals, as it is typically expressed by conservatives.

    I would also suggest that this is the result of Christianity’s influence on conservative’s thinking, as Jesus tended to stress compassion by the individual follower as a personal act, rather than a societal obligation to be fulfilled by the government.

    Having said that, I would also suggest that compassion as expressed by the left is much more of an intellectual, rather than a spiritual or emotional pursuit. By making sure that their obligation to help the less fortunate is accomplished by everyone equally through the auspices of government, i.e. someone else, they never really have to meet such challenges one-on-one, where people’s hands get dirty, and they have to come to terms with the fact that they really might not be “better” than the people they feel so moved to help with other people’s money. It would also go a long way towards shattering their long-heald sacred belief that choices bear no logical connection to consequences.

  107. By making sure that their obligation to help the less fortunate is accomplished by everyone equally through the auspices of government, i.e. someone else

    You know I’ve heard this argument, “other people’s money” repeatedly.

    Could you please point me to the line on the 1040 that says “I am declaring a tax exemption because I am a liberal”. Please do because I could use all the tax breaks I can find! 🙂

    When liberals advocate bigger government, and the taxes that might go with it, they are well aware that they will be paying those taxes also. So this notion that libs want to pay for stuff with “other people’s money” is baloney.

  108. Rutherford I don’t get to point to MA with pride too often,although II hold out hope,but….
    You could do well to consider how in MA we allow people to voluntarily pay a higher tax -and we don’t!
    I accept either side can play with the factoid butthere it is.

  109. I’d also add that given who actually pays taxes in the USA it must be said that liberals do indeed pay with others money

    Is that based on the supposition that conservatives tend to earn more than liberals? If so, you might have a point there. Doesn’t refute my comment though that libs are hardly exempt from the taxes they advocate.

    As for the MA model, that would be a very interesting experiment in the US of A. A federal web site where each funding initiative is posted on the web and folks can voluntarily “donate” to it. I wonder how quickly all programs would grind to a halt? I guess from the conservative mindset that would be a good thing. 🙂

  110. When liberals advocate bigger government, and the taxes that might go with it, they are well aware that they will be paying those taxes also.

    Doesn’t really matter. You’re still taking my money to spend on your favorite cause, even if you use your own as well. It makes you less hypocritical, but no more moral.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s