Support NeoGAF

[Wilsongt]

According to Ted Cruz it seems Obama's joined the BSD movement by banning flights to a War Zone.

Ted Cruz saying more stupid shit? What? is it Wednesday again?

 

[Oblivion]

 

[speculawyer]

Can we ban Cuban immigrants too then?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What is it with Republicans and not understanding how charts work?

 

[Wilsongt]

 

[speculawyer]

nm

 

[Oblivion]

Does anyone know, hypothetically, if the SC agrees with the plaintiffs about the subsidies not allowed to be provided to states without exchanges, will that ruling have any effect on the taxes in Obamacare?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So AZ tortured a person to death tonight.

 

[Black Mamba]

Does anyone know, hypothetically, if the SC agrees with the plaintiffs about the subsidies not allowed to be provided to states without exchanges, will that ruling have any effect on the taxes in Obamacare?

Yes, it will. Since insurance will cost more than it is defined as "affordable," those people will be exempt from the mandate tax, just as are poor people in non-medicaid expansion states.

Of course, those people will have to pay the gov't back the money given...

 

[Oblivion]

Yes, it will. Since insurance will cost more than it is defined as "affordable," those people will be exempt from the mandate tax, just as are poor people in non-medicaid expansion states.

Of course, those people will have to pay the gov't back the money given...

No, I meant the other Obamacare taxes, not the "tax penalty" stuff, like the medicare tax on high earners.

 

[Black Mamba]

No. I'm not sure why you'd think those would be affected?

 

[Oblivion]

Well, if the subsidies are getting cut from states that don't have exchanges, then that would mean that those states would be paying those taxes despite not being eligible for those same subsidies. I'd think Roberts would use some kind of justification to strike those down as well like he did with the medicaid expansion.

 

[Tamanon]

Well, if the subsidies are getting cut from states that don't have exchanges, then that would mean that those states would be paying those taxes despite not being eligible for those same subsidies. I'd think Roberts would use some kind of justification to strike those down as well like he did with the medicaid expansion.

Eh, that seems like an awful lot of modifying a law when he could also just modify it so the subsidies work. Either way would be an interpretation.

 

[Oblivion]

Eh, that seems like an awful lot of modifying a law when he could also just modify it so the subsidies work. Either way would be an interpretation.

Why would he want to do that?

 

[Black Mamba]

Well, if the subsidies are getting cut from states that don't have exchanges, then that would mean that those states would be paying those taxes despite not being eligible for those same subsidies. I'd think Roberts would use some kind of justification to strike those down as well like he did with the medicaid expansion.

SCOTUS doesn't have the power to strike down taxes like this.

The medicaid issue is completely different. That's a state vs federal issue. The taxes are on individuals, not states. No state pays taxes, only people do.

The medicare taxes are a modifier on the current income/capital gains taxes. SCOTUS has literally zero authority to do anything to that without a constitutional amendment. Even if the SCOTUS tore down the individual mandate 2 years ago, those taxes would still be in place.

Hell, you could argue that if the Roberts Court did that, it would lead to a Constitutional Crisis.

 

[Cloudy]

Watching Megyn Kelly for the first time in a while. She has dropped all (false) pretense of being an objective reporter and is just an GOP attack-dog now

 

[Oblivion]

SCOTUS doesn't have the power to strike down taxes like this.

The medicaid issue is completely different. That's a state vs federal issue. The taxes are on individuals, not states. No state pays taxes, only people do.

The medicare taxes are a modifier on the current income/capital gains taxes. SCOTUS has literally zero authority to do anything to that without a constitutional amendment. Even if the SCOTUS tore down the individual mandate 2 years ago, those taxes would still be in place.

Hell, you could argue that if the Roberts Court did that, it would lead to a Constitutional Crisis.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

At the very least, there'll be some small comfort in that if this actually goes through, the Republicans would have succeeded in getting their constituents what amounts to a big ole' tax hike.

 

[WayneMorse]

Watching Megyn Kelly for the first time in a while. She has dropped all (false) pretense of being an objective reporter and is just an GOP attack-dog now

I was living with my grandfather last month and he wouldn't let us eat dinner until he watched O'Reilly and Megyn.

 

[kehs]

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

At the very least, there'll be some small comfort in that if this actually goes through, the Republicans would have succeeded in getting their constituents what amounts to a big ole' tax hike.

I can only expect even more lawsuits popping up attacking the tax hikes. Domino effect.

 

[Black Mamba]

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

At the very least, there'll be some small comfort in that if this actually goes through, the Republicans would have succeeded in getting their constituents what amounts to a big ole' tax hike.

It's even worse, long term. You see, this is an example of conservatives winning being a major loss, IMO. But I don't think they beleive they can win so it's better for them to be seen fighting.

See, let's assume the SCOTUS steps in and sides with their argument and the subsidies are gone for these states. What happens? Well, those people have to pay the gov't back and they will lose their insurance.

So the GOP has 3 options:

1. Fix the law retroactively and going forward to how it was truly meant to be
2. Fix retroactively and push governors to create own exchange ASAP
3. Fix retroactive but not going forward and/or overturn ACA
4. Do nothing and fuck their constituents badly in their states.

Only #3 is viable of for them but Obama/Dems will never ever ever comply.

The other 3 options are terrible for them. #2 probably isn't really feasible in the short run, #1 means they are complicit in fixing an issue with the ACA, and #4 will get them booted out of office to fucking fast. Imagine all their GOP constituents being asked to pay the gov't back $2500 they don't have.

But it won't happen. No fucking way the SCOTUS allows some bastardized reading of the law to guide them. I think think the en banc review will overturn and the SCOTUS never hears the case. It's too ridiculous and a ruling against the law would probably be the most absurd decision since Plessy v Ferguson.

I can only expect even more lawsuits popping up attacking the tax hikes. Domino effect.

You can't sue income tax hikes. Like, this isn't a legal option.

 

[Black Mamba]

In fact, it was Justice Scalia himself, together with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who interpreted the health reform statute precisely this way in the 2012 health reform case—holistically, and assuming the statutory text makes subsidies available on state and federal exchanges alike. In their joint dissent, they wrote: “Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.” And then: “In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insur­ance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. … That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated.” The dissenters also assumed: “By 2019, 20 million of the 24 million people who will obtain insurance through an exchange are expected to receive an average federal subsidy of $6,460 per person”—numbers that only make sense if the federal exchanges are included.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...out-obamacare-109263_Page2.html#ixzz38LbEZFJS

Looks like Scalia already wrote that he interprets the law to include subsidies via federal exchange.

It would be quite remarkable if Scalia (and the rest) disagree with his own interpretation of the law in just 2 years time.

No one should be worried about this case, IMO.

 

[RustyNails]

I was living with my grandfather last month and he wouldn't let us eat dinner until he watched O'Reilly and Megyn.

Let me guess, your grandpa is a flaming liberal democrat?

 

[Rhomega Beta]

I was living with my grandfather last month and he wouldn't let us eat dinner until he watched O'Reilly and Megyn.

Wow, that's selfish of him. Isn't that like two hours?

 

[Mario]

Watching Megyn Kelly for the first time in a while. She has dropped all (false) pretense of being an objective reporter and is just an GOP attack-dog now

She did at least challenge Dick Cheney a couple of weeks back on his criticism of the current Administration about Iraq given his own track record. Don't think he was expecting that from her (few people probably were).

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Watching Megyn Kelly for the first time in a while. She has dropped all (false) pretense of being an objective reporter and is just an GOP attack-dog now

Who saw that coming?

 

[zero shift]

Political beliefs aren't really a straight line. They're more of a circle or a graph, with the top two quadrants being authoritative and the bottom two being libertarian with the economic beliefs fall where you would expect.

I agree but I've never met a libertarian who is pro-welfare or even pro-poor.

benji

they're anarchists they don't like the state and thus regulation that unfairly 'enriches the elite'

Benjipwns is pretty right wing.

Markos of Daily Kos considered himself a "Libertarian Democrat".

Good article, but honestly what he describe doesn't sound much different than a liberal.

This. I always have this feeling that our entire *system* is band-aided beyond belief and the whole thing comes crashing down, back to zero, in our lifetime. Only thing left standing will be the defense industry, perfectly and capably intact. Maybe we should not have bailed the banks and auto inudstry and let it burn to the ground. I dont know. But this prescription of band-aiding must stop.

It's only a matter of time until those that neoliberalism screwed over go to the voting booth. Pretty soon non-Hispanic white will be the minority.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Good article, but honestly what he describe doesn't sound much different than a liberal.

That post was written in '06, when libertarians and liberals had common cause in hating Bush's foreign policy. Then, Obama won the election, and did liberal things like spending money and actually trying to regulate things and libertarians remembered every President is a fascist socialist who literally using the barrel of a gun to confiscate money out of your wallet.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Good article, but honestly what he describe doesn't sound much different than a liberal.

That was at a time where being a "liberal" was a bad thing and Democrats were actively recruiting military Democrats to run in swing districts.

 

[KingK]

That was at a time where being a "liberal" was a bad thing and Democrats were actively recruiting military Democrats to run in swing districts.

I wish that politicians accused of being "liberal" as an insult would just quote that Santos debate scene from the West Wing.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I wish that politicians accused of being "liberal" as an insult would just quote that Santos debate scene from the West Wing.

Well, Santos line was kind of a rework of JFK's acceptance of the Liberal Party nomination of New York in 1960, "But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

 

[Dominican Power]

How do these state exchanged federal tax credit subsidies work?

 

[thepotatoman]

I wish that politicians accused of being "liberal" as an insult would just quote that Santos debate scene from the West Wing.

I had to look it up, and might as well put the link out there for anyone who is curious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVdz985HTJk

I think the problem is the people who respond to the word liberal as an insult simply wouldn't believe that telling of history, especially after the conservative pr machine picks it up and starts muddying the water, like by finding that one quote from each of those historical politicians that sounds more conservative than liberal and calling that proof that they were actually conservative.

That JFK style of wording is a much better approach, I'm not sure why that went out of style. Maybe it does happen and we just don't notice it, especially since "liberal" is rarely used like that in something like an interview or debate.

 

[Diablos]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/22/why-obamacare-probably-isnt-doomed/

That isn't inspiring a whole lot of confidence. It is still heading right for the SCOTUS in a year or two. No one can say with absolute confidence that the subsidies as they are doled out today will be left alone. It all boils down to how far reaching the definition of 'state' in relation to eligibility for subsidies is interpreted by the majority. Any right-leaning judge is going to be prone to siding with good old fashioned states rights (setting up an exchange or not and subsequently being entitled to subsidies or not, as defined by whatever their interpretation of this part of the law will end up being) trumping all. Also, it's foolish to say the best shot for striking this down was thrown out the window in the 5-4 ruling in favor of the mandate as a tax. That ruling had absolutely nothing to do with the subsidies.

Also, PD, there's no way this isn't heading for the SCOTUS. Even people who are saying that the ACA is not doomed are pretty sure it is going to end up there sooner or later.

Meh. So tired of the courts. Birth control, botched executions, health care, trivial shit like Internet TV service, even... our government is so incredibly dysfunctional -- local, state and federal alike.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Conspiracy theory time.

SCOTUS agrees with the right on Obamacare subsidies, strikes then down. GOP rails about how the law was broken, Obama is dumb. Ted Cruz puts forward a bill, FIX AMERICAN HEALTHCARE ACT, with an insanely long acronym. The bills simply fixes the subsidy wording issues in Obamacare, restoring the law to exactly what it was. Everything is fixed, Republicans get credit for fixing Obama's broken law, Ted Cruz becomes president for life.

 

[Diablos]

Looks like Scalia already wrote that he interprets the law to include subsidies via federal exchange.

It would be quite remarkable if Scalia (and the rest) disagree with his own interpretation of the law in just 2 years time.

No one should be worried about this case, IMO.

Right, but were they merely stating what they thought Congress was attempting to do, but stopped short of actually addressing the validity of their intent in that regard, as that ruling did not actually have anything to do with the subsidies?

 

[BertramCooper]

So Paul Ryan wants to consolidate federal spending on entitlement programs into block grants for the state governments.

What a great plan, considering not a single state government has shown wanton disregard for their most vulnerable citizens in the past few years or anything. Of course we can trust them to spend this antipoverty money with their citizens' best interests at heart.

What reason would we have to question the judgment of state governments on entitlement programs?

 

[Wilsongt]

So Paul Ryan wants to consolidate federal spending on entitlement programs into block grants for the state governments.

What a great plan, considering not a single state government has shown wanton disregard for their most vulnerable citizens in the past few years or anything. Of course we can trust them to spend this antipoverty money with their citizens' best interests at heart.

What reason would we have to question the judgment of state governments on entitlement programs?

You would think by now that, when it comes to anything about budgets/poverty that Paul Ryan is the last person you want to consult.

 

[ivysaur12]

If there is a ruling for the defendants in an en banc hearing at the DC Circuit, which is likely, it's less likely the SCOTUS would take this up.

Also, hi PoliGAF. Gonna try to be more active here again.

 

[AntoneM]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rubio-tries-and-fails-thread-culture-war-needle#break

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio acknowledged Wednesday that American history was "marred by discrimination against gays and lesbians." But in a speech at Catholic University in Washington, Rubio drew the line sharply at marriage equality and accused supporters of same sex unions of "intolerance."

"I promise you even before this speech is over I'll be attacked as a hater or a bigot or someone who is anti-gay," Rubio said. "This intolerance in the name of tolerance is hypocrisy. Support for the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is not anti-gay, it is pro-traditional marriage."

Tolerate my intolerance!!

Also, it's not anti-abortion, it's pro life!

 

[PhoenixDark]

That isn't inspiring a whole lot of confidence. It is still heading right for the SCOTUS in a year or two. No one can say with absolute confidence that the subsidies as they are doled out today will be left alone. It all boils down to how far reaching the definition of 'state' in relation to eligibility for subsidies is interpreted by the majority. Any right-leaning judge is going to be prone to siding with good old fashioned states rights (setting up an exchange or not and subsequently being entitled to subsidies or not, as defined by whatever their interpretation of this part of the law will end up being) trumping all. Also, it's foolish to say the best shot for striking this down was thrown out the window in the 5-4 ruling in favor of the mandate as a tax. That ruling had absolutely nothing to do with the subsidies.

Also, PD, there's no way this isn't heading for the SCOTUS. Even people who are saying that the ACA is not doomed are pretty sure it is going to end up there sooner or later.

Meh. So tired of the courts. Birth control, botched executions, health care, trivial shit like Internet TV service, even... our government is so incredibly dysfunctional -- local, state and federal alike.

And if it does, why are you concerned given how the court operates under Roberts? Not to mention the fact that Scalia is on record:

"[the] fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.”

I'm not worried at all, and I kind of doubt it'll reach the SC.

 

[HylianTom]

So.. where should the DNC to be held in '16?

Philadelphia
New York City
Phoenix
Columbus
Birmingham

I'm a bit torn between two of them. Another two I want to say "hell no" to. And the one is just kinda meh to me.

 

[Joe Molotov]

So.. where should the DNC to be held in '16?

Mena

 

[The Librarian]

So.. where should the DNC to be held in '16?

Philadelphia
New York City
Phoenix
Columbus
Birmingham

I'm a bit torn between two of them. Another two I want to say "hell no" to. And the one is just kinda meh to me.

My mom's apartment.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So.. where should the DNC to be held in '16?

Philadelphia
New York City
Phoenix
Columbus
Birmingham

I'm a bit torn between two of them. Another two I want to say "hell no" to. And the one is just kinda meh to me.

I don't really think holding something helps the party in that area so I say Philly or NYC

 

[Metaphoreus]

Looks like Scalia already wrote that he interprets the law to include subsidies via federal exchange.

It would be quite remarkable if Scalia (and the rest) disagree with his own interpretation of the law in just 2 years time.

No one should be worried about this case, IMO.

But that's dicta, and there's a good reason that resolutions of issues not addressed by the parties aren't binding on future decisions. The courts need to hear vigorous presentations of both sides of a dispute to be able to decide the issue properly. No doubt everything Scalia said came from some brief or another, rather than his own analysis of the specific statutory language involved.

And if it does, why are you concerned given how the court operates under Roberts? Not to mention the fact that Scalia is on record:

I'm not worried at all, and I kind of doubt it'll reach the SC.

Saying that you have to read a provision in the context of the entire statute doesn't mean the 4th Circuit opinion wins. The D.C. Circuit, itself, followed this rule:

The text of section 36B is only the starting point of this analysis. That provision is but one piece of a vast, complex statutory scheme, and we must consider it both on its own and in relation to the ACA’s interconnected provisions and overall structure so as to interpret the Act, if possible, “as a symmetrical and coherent scheme.”

 

[HylianTom]

I don't really think holding something helps the party in that area so I say Philly or NYC

Those are the two that I'm torn on. If Hillary's the nominee, the parallels will be drawn to her husband's path through NYC in 1992.

But Philly could be great, too. (Sad, but my mind automatically wonders if the It's Always Sunny gang would do any comedy based on a convention held there..)

 

[benjipwns]

Don't mean to intrude but since I was mentioned by name a couple times and I was away circling endlessly by plane this last week.

Re: "Left-libertarianism"

http://c4ss.org/
http://praxeology.net/all-left.htm (be sure to check out the babylon 5 page when you're done http://praxeology.net/babylon5.htm h/t Joe Molotov)
http://voluntaryist.com/

Self-described:
http://c4ss.org/content/28216 ("What is Left-Libertarianism?")
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/11/the-distinctiveness-of-left-libertarianism
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/libertarian-left
*

The only distinction I really consider is that "right-libertarian" is basically anti-immigrant and more likely to be anti-abortion and came via Rand or Ron Paul. But more often Paleolibertarianism it's called. Otherwise I find general agreement broadly except on the state necessity. It's all the specific specifics where you start getting the splitters.

I agree for the most part with Rothbard's (and others) consideration of history but I'm willing to grant "The Left" that side of the spectrum due to their long standing popular alignment with it, and thus put anarchism and libertarianism and liberalism on the right.

Benjipwns is pretty right wing.

If believing that only an individual can own himself, and thus things like his labor and the product thereof, is right-wing then yes.

That post was written in '06, when libertarians and liberals had common cause in hating Bush's foreign policy. Then, Obama won the election, and did liberal things like spending money and actually trying to regulate things and libertarians remembered every President is a fascist socialist who literally using the barrel of a gun to confiscate money out of your wallet.

Yes, unfortunately no common cause in Bush's domestic policy as libertarian opposition continues but Democratic support continues.

not sure about benji, but angry fork is an anarchist.

Yes, voluntaryist specifically.


*Some more articles that touch on various things in case anyone wants to go down the rabbit hole:
http://www.mises.org/story/910
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/class-struggle-rightly-conceived
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11...ions-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now
http://c4ss.org/content/66
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2007/11/naomi-klein-shock-doctrine.html
http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/myth-minimalist-state
personal fav that Jonah Goldberg did a bit of a disservice to, even if it was more accessible: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/long/long15.html

One fun line from it:

And Spencer [in 1881] saw England beginning to follow in Germany's footsteps; he noted with alarm “a manifest extension of the militant spirit and discipline among the police, who, wearing helmet-shaped hats, beginning to carry revolvers, and looking upon themselves as half soldiers, have come to speak of the people as ‘civilians',”

Delicious.

http://praxeology.net/immanent-liberalism.PDF
http://praxeology.net/libclass-theory-part-1.pdf
http://praxeology.net/libclass-theory-part-2.pdf

Mises and Hoppe weren't but they did write stuff that came close and figures into the canon:
http://www.mises.org/mmmp/mmmp15.asp
http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf

 

[BertramCooper]

So.. where should the DNC to be held in '16?

Philadelphia
New York City
Phoenix
Columbus
Birmingham

I'm a bit torn between two of them. Another two I want to say "hell no" to. And the one is just kinda meh to me.

It would be hilarious if they'd give it to Columbus just to counteract a possible boost in Ohio from the GOP convention in Cleveland.

But we won't get it because we have lousy public transportation. Which, ironically, is the reason the RNC passed on Columbus. (You'd think that would count as a positive in their book.)

 

[speculawyer]

The only distinction I really consider is that "right-libertarian" is basically anti-immigrant and more likely to be anti-abortion and came via Rand or Ron Paul. But more often Paleolibertarianism it's called. Otherwise I find general agreement broadly except on the state necessity. It's all the specific specifics where you start getting the splitters.

And anti-gay. And likely to deny climate science. And more concerned about cutting taxes than actually reducing the deficit.

Hey wait . . . they are just Republicans that are isolationists.

 

[speculawyer]

*Some more articles that touch on various things in case anyone wants to go down the rabbit hole:
http://www.mises.org/story/910
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/class-struggle-rightly-conceived
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11...ions-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now
http://c4ss.org/content/66
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2007/11/naomi-klein-shock-doctrine.html
http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/myth-minimalist-state
personal fav that Jonah Goldberg did a bit of a disservice to, even if it was more accessible: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/long/long15.html

One fun line from it:

Delicious.

http://praxeology.net/immanent-liberalism.PDF
http://praxeology.net/libclass-theory-part-1.pdf
http://praxeology.net/libclass-theory-part-2.pdf

Mises and Hoppe weren't but they did write stuff that came close and figures into the canon:
http://www.mises.org/mmmp/mmmp15.asp
http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf

Ugh . . . what a pile of garbage. I don't understand how people can follow some gobbledy-gook that rejects empiricism and scientific method. Might as well follow astrology, homeopathy, and VooDoo.

Austrian Economics relies heavily on praxeology in the development of its economic theories.[14] Ludwig von Mises considered economics to be a sub-discipline of praxeology. Austrian School economists continue to use praxeology and deduction, rather than empirical studies, to determine economic law.

Criticisms[edit]
Thomas Mayer has argued that the Austrian economists' rejection of the scientific method, which employs positivism and empiricism in the development of theories, invalidates Austrian methodology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology