Support NeoGAF

[Poodlestrike]

Fixed.

This took me a minute.

 

[Black Mamba]

The brief also misused the often out of context quote on the ACA from Pelosi about passing it to know what's in it.

The brief is a farce.


edit: Of course King challenger's are saying what you've said, metachlorians. You're regurgitating their argument from their lawyers websites for months. These are not things you've discovered; you're just copy pasting.

 

[Oblivion]

A few items of interest:

(1) The challengers' reply brief in King has been filed. I especially liked the following two paragraphs:

The Government’s effort to explain is laughably unpersuasive. Congress had to use this phrase, it argues, because of “style and grammar,” to “identify the Exchange in a particular State.” (Govt.Br.33.) That is, because the same sentence of § 36B begins by authorizing subsidies for plans “in the individual market within a State,” its subsequent reference to an Exchange had to make clear that it was “referring to the Exchange in the specific State mentioned,” not some other Exchange. (Govt.Br.33-34.) “Established by the State” was supposedly how it did so.

If anything, however, § 36B’s switch from “within a State” to “established by the State” confirms that the latter restrictive formulation means what it says. Had Congress merely wanted to refer back to the “specific State mentioned earlier,” it would have just changed the article from “a” to “the”—specifying the “Exchange within the State.” That would have avoided any (unlikely) confusion over which state was intended, and clearly swept in HHS Exchanges. It is also what Congress did elsewhere. 42 U.S.C. § 18032(e)(1) (authorizing “a State” to allow brokers to enroll people “through an Exchange in the State”). By contrast, § 36B focuses on who established the Exchange in the state.

Not to beat a dead horse, but seriously, this is absurd. As I've said in the past, it would be one thing if these douches were solely making the argument that we need to follow the law as written. But they're not. They're also trying to argue that denying subsidies was the Obamacare architects plan all along. And their best defense is pointing to one instance where the law should have used "a" instead of "the"? And this, despite the fact that, when read in full, the context CLEARLY shows that congress wanted to provide exchanges through the federal exchange.

So here are a few questions:

1. If congress' intent was to deny people subsidies in states that didn't have their own exchange, then what the fuck is the point of healthcare.gov?
2. If this was congress' plan all along, then why are democrats fighting this? If everything is going according to keikaku plan, then shouldn't this be a GOOD thing?
3. Do you seriously believe, from a conservative perspective that the Democrats would create a bill that would somehow PREVENT as many people from being dependent on the government as possible?

 

[Black Mamba]

Not to beat a dead horse, but seriously, this is absurd. As I've said in the past, it would be one thing if these douches were solely making the argument that we need to follow the law as written. But they're not. They're also trying to argue that denying subsidies was the Obamacare architects plan all along. And their best defense is pointing to one instance where the law should have used "a" instead of "the"? And this, despite the fact that, when read in full, the context CLEARLY shows that congress wanted to provide exchanges through the federal exchange.

So here are a few questions:

1. If congress' intent was to deny people subsidies in states that didn't have their own exchange, then what the fuck is the point of healthcare.gov?
2. If this was congress' plan all along, then why are democrats fighting this? If everything is going according to keikaku plan, then shouldn't this be a GOOD thing?
3. Do you seriously believe, from a conservative perspective that the Democrats would create a bill that would somehow PREVENT as many people from being dependent on the government as possible?

And as I have proven before, SCOTUS has already recently ruled that if the States don't know that the threat has been given, then the threat, even if written into the law, becomes null and void.

 

[HylianTom]

Will Hispanic support for democrats collapse in light of the administration's lack of preparation for challenges to the deportation executive action? This could doom Hillary.

There was a great whiny article on conservative media outlets about how Jorge Ramos (of Univision) posted this "threat" on Twitter..

He's guessing that Latino voters will know who brought these challenges to court. Given his position, he might have a good grasp on this.

 

[Metaphoreus]

edit: Of course King challenger's are saying what you've said, metachlorians. You're regurgitating their argument from their lawyers websites for months. These are not things you've discovered; you're just copy pasting.

Nah. I challenge you to find a webpage from which I might have copied the within-by distinction when I wrote my response to eBay Huckster. I'll wait.

Though, admittedly, that post to which I direct Crisco is almost entirely copy-pasted.

 

[Black Mamba]

Nah. I challenge you to find a webpage from which I might have copied the within-by distinction when I wrote my response to eBay Huckster. I'll wait.

Though, admittedly, that post to which I direct Crisco is almost entirely copy-pasted.

I don't literally mean a copy-paste but that you took the arguments given and then wrote them in your own words. Which is fine, we all do that (myself included) but I find it hilarious that you continuously allude to the arguments given in briefs and such as if you came up with them on your own and then those lawyers simply came up with the same arguments as well.

 

[Oblivion]

And as I have proven before, SCOTUS has already recently ruled that if the States don't know that the threat has been given, then the threat, even if written into the law, becomes null and void.

And yes, speaking of the alleged "threat", if this was clearly congress' intent and a critical feature of the ACA, as the challengers claim, then why would they hide said "threat" in one ambiguous paragraph, of one page of a two thousand page bill? And why would everyone have been shocked by this if this was the point all along? The threat about states with the medicaid funding was clear as day and everyone accepted that. This case with the subsidies is the exact opposite.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

I don't think he'll win but it's nice to have a credible challenger in every race we can. I also wouldn't count his 2012 near-loss against him - it was an open seat in a state that went heavily for Romney. Not everyone can run against Todd Akin.

Nasty surprise for Scott Walker, when the national media starts reporting on his Wisconsin antics the kids' gloves come off (to an extent).

He heavily underperformed against other Democrats like Governor Nixon, Attorney General Koster, Treasurer Zweifel as well. Democrats statewide in Missouri did well in 2012 - Lt. Gov was the only one they lost and that's because Lt. Gov For Life Peter Kinder is there

Most of it has to do with the fact that those are all incumbents, I'd guess

good, related aritcle

 

[Metaphoreus]

Not to beat a dead horse, but seriously, this is absurd. As I've said in the past, it would be one thing if these douches were solely making the argument that we need to follow the law as written. But they're not. They're also trying to argue that denying subsidies was the Obamacare architects plan all along. And their best defense is pointing to one instance where the law should have used "a" instead of "the"? And this, despite the fact that, when read in full, the context CLEARLY shows that congress wanted to provide exchanges through the federal exchange.

So here are a few questions:

1. If congress' intent was to deny people subsidies in states that didn't have their own exchange, then what the fuck is the point of healthcare.gov?
2. If this was congress' plan all along, then why are democrats fighting this? If everything is going according to keikaku plan, then shouldn't this be a GOOD thing?
3. Do you seriously believe, from a conservative perspective that the Democrats would create a bill that would somehow PREVENT as many people from being dependent on the government as possible?

First of all, remember the distinction between the objective "intent" of the legislature as reflected in the text of a statute, and subjective "intent" of legislators that is not reflected in the text of a statute. The challengers' argument is strongest when directed at the former "intent," and weakest when directed at the latter. But the former is what matters, in the end.

And you're misreading the challengers' argument, which doesn't turn on the use of "the" instead of "a," but "by" instead of "within." It may seem odd that so much can turn on a single word, but the law uses language with precision.

As for your questions:

1.) See here and here.

2.) That's a good question, and there are a number of possible answers. For one, Democrats could have been unaware what the statute said regarding credits on FFEs. For another, it could be that fewer states opted to create their own Exchanges, and so Democrats feel like the law will fail if subsidies can't be extended to FFEs, and don't want to be held accountable for having designed a law with such a fatal flaw.

3.) Setting aside the stereotypes of what conservatives and liberals want, there's little reason to question that Democrats wanted states to take the lead in implementing the ACA. It's pretty obvious from the statute itself.

I don't literally mean a copy-paste but that you took the arguments given and then wrote them in your own words. Which is fine, we all do that (myself included) but I find it hilarious that you continuously allude to the arguments given in briefs and such as if you came up with them on your own and then those lawyers simply came up with the same arguments as well.

With much of what I've posted, that's true. The within/by distinction, however, I developed on my own from reading the statute. (It's possible that somewhere I read a similar argument and simply forgot about it, but I don't think that's the case).

And yes, speaking of the alleged "threat", if this was clearly congress' intent and a critical feature of the ACA, as the challengers claim, then why would they hide said "threat" in one ambiguous paragraph, of one page of a two thousand page bill? And why would everyone have been shocked by this if this was the point all along? The threat about states with the medicaid funding was clear as day and everyone accepted that. This case with the subsidies is the exact opposite.

The paragraph isn't ambiguous. And as I've said before, the Medicaid threat wasn't obvious in the bill itself, since it was contained in a section of the US Code not affected by the ACA. In fact, the threat wasn't obvious until Sebelius threatened Arizona that she'd take away all their Medicaid funding, after the ACA had passed. And even long after that threat, Justice Breyer still thought the government might be able to walk back its position.

Had the IRS opted to keep its original draft rules, which tracked the language of the statute regarding state-established Exchanges, nobody would have been deceived about the availability of credits on FFEs.

 

[AntoneM]

Can I just submit a link to this thread as an amicus brief to the court for the King decision?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Can I just submit a link to this thread as an amicus brief to the court for the King decision?

Pretty sure the time for filing amicus briefs has passed, sadly.

 

[Black Mamba]

The paragraph isn't ambiguous. And as I've said before, the Medicaid threat wasn't obvious in the bill itself, since it was contained in a section of the US Code not affected by the ACA. In fact, the threat wasn't obvious until Sebelius threatened Arizona that she'd take away all their Medicaid funding, after the ACA had passed. And even long after that threat, Justice Breyer still thought the government might be able to walk back its position.

But the threat was conveyed. And as I have explained, the SCOTUS has already ruled on this matter. If the threat is unknown to the states, the writing of the law is irrelevant. The threat does not exist.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This is used to po -po millennial and call them stupid for supporting socialism but not "knowing what it is"

What a stupid conclusion to draw from that. Maybe its just younger people don't see the world in black and white. Is Europe not free market? Is it socialist? Can't it be both?

Not many socialist are even calling for government manged economies just regulation and occasional intervention. And the major thing people associate with socialism is welfare which doesn't depend on who owns the means of productions.

They hold this definition of socialism that nobody subscribes to and pretend that because nobody likes their crazy hypotheticals everyone is in agreement with them.

 

[Black Mamba]

New federal data shows that the price of hospital care in the United States fell between this January and a year prior — the first time the government has seen a year-over-year drop since it started keeping track in 1998.

The price of hospital care fell 0.1 percent between January 2014 and January 2015, Modern Healthcare reported Thursday morning. When you focus on Medicare prices, the decline gets steeper: prices there fell 2.9 percent over the same time period.

Medical prices getting smaller rather than larger is a big deal. Health wonks typically get excited by something more modest: when health-care prices rise more slowly than they used to. But this new federal data (which is preliminary and could be revised) suggests something even more meaningful: not just slower growth in medical price-tags from one year to the next, but an actual drop in how much care costs.

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/19/8071205/hospital-prices-always-go-up-but-this-year-they-went-down

Thanks Obama.

Another ACA success. Widely reported, I assume.

 

[Joe Molotov]

This is used to po -po millennial and call them stupid for supporting socialism but not "knowing what it is"

What a stupid conclusion to draw from that. Maybe its just younger people don't see the world in black and white. Is Europe not free market? Is it socialist? Can't it be both?

Not many socialist are even calling for government manged economies just regulation and occasional intervention. And the major thing people associate with socialism is welfare which doesn't depend on who owns the means of productions.

They hold this definition of socialism that nobody subscribes to and pretend that because nobody likes their crazy hypotheticals everyone is in agreement with them.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an “A”.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a “B”. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a “D”! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the new average was an “F”.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Human nature will always cause socialism's style of government to fail because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers).

It could not be any simpler than that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an “A”.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a “B”. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a “D”! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the new average was an “F”.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Human nature will always cause socialism's style of government to fail because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers).

It could not be any simpler than that.

chain email?

Also lol Jindal:

‏@costareports
Bobby Jindal just sent out this statement from his official gubernatorial office: "Gov. Jindal Refuses to Condemn Mayor Giuliani"

Literally no one asked him, he just sent this out.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yeah, I don't think Whelan's right. Ginsburg's comments don't really have to do with the merits of the question, but with how society might react to a ruling striking down same-sex marriage bans. Contrast that with Scalia's recusal in the pledge-of-allegiance case a few years ago, wherein Scalia (according to Slate) suggested the 9th Circuit opinion was wrong. Those are quite different sorts of statements.

On the other hand, the HRC's use of Ginsburg's statement to drum up support for its "People's Brief" is clearly untoward. But that can't really be pinned on Ginsburg.

Oh, it's a bit gross (as is the HRC), but that's not on Ginsburg herself. She's just stating the obvious, and the question itself wasn't on the merits. Sort of grasping at straws for her to recuse herself, which she won't.

What do you mean in distinguishing between "meaning" and "application"? And where do you see the challengers using "logical hoops to constrict words and meaning to say that the law does something completely different than what is written"? I think the challengers' argument is the only one that permits the law to operate precisely as written, so I'm curious what leads you to disagree.

To summarize my position, my reading of the text doesn't lead me to believe that the subsidies should be limited to states that set up exchanges, and that is not the intent of the statute to begin with.

This is a complete punt on my part, and I apologize for it. I just don't really want to get into another King discussion, and it was my fault to begin with for commenting. I end up getting sucked into these discussions instead of doing things that I should be doing in life. Again -- unfair, and I shouldn't have commented to begin with.

 

[B-Dubs]

chain email?

Also lol Jindal:


Literally no one asked him, he just sent this out.

That's definitely a chain e-mail, someone's posted it here before.

wtf is Jindal doing? The smart thing to do would be to keep out of it until someone brings it up.

 

[Crisco]

Out of curiosity, what is this distinction you're drawing between grammatical and legal construction? What would be an argument based on legal but not grammatical construction? I suspect your complaint is that the challengers are unwilling to make a policy argument, but I'd like for you to clarify before I respond to that notion.

I should have been more precise and used "statutory" instead of "legal" but I'll let Justice Scalia do the explaining,

the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme

the latter is what grammatical construction lacks. This isn't Game of Thrones, we're not trying to figure out who Jon's dad fucked based on cryptic clues left by the author.

Of course they do. You later even quote the portion of their brief addressing just this question, though missing its significance. They write:

Stated differently, the King challengers argue that the lack of credits on FFEs was to serve as an inducement to states to take on the task of establishing their own Exchange. Elsewhere, the challengers point out that this reading makes the most sense of 1311's use of the mandatory "shall" when discussing states establishing Exchanges:

Right, an argument which presupposes the correctness of the challenger's claims and rewrites history. My child was more persuasive explaining how a dragon stole his iPod. See, this is where I have to question your sincerity because questioning anything else would get me suspended again.

You and I have discussed this already, but it has been awhile, and you've probably slept since then. If you don't feel like a stroll down Memory Lane, though, here's the King challengers saying much the same as I said:

In which they make no attempt to explain the practical absurdity of a federal Exchange with no subsidies (87% of federal exchange customers qualified for subsidies). Why? Because admitting absurd results ruins their case.

 

[Teggy]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an “A”.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a “B”. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a “D”! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the new average was an “F”.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Human nature will always cause socialism's style of government to fail because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers).

It could not be any simpler than that.

Wait, isn't a Gulf War vet supposed to raise his hand and send a crying eagle flying out from his jacket to eat the livers of all the socialist students? Maybe I heard a different story.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Wait, isn't a Gulf War vet supposed to raise his hand and send a crying eagle flying out from his jacket to eat the livers of all the socialist students? Maybe I heard a different story.

I thought it was Einstein and he proved gods existence?

 

[Fenderputty]

This is used to po -po millennial and call them stupid for supporting socialism but not "knowing what it is"

What a stupid conclusion to draw from that. Maybe its just younger people don't see the world in black and white. Is Europe not free market? Is it socialist? Can't it be both?

Not many socialist are even calling for government manged economies just regulation and occasional intervention. And the major thing people associate with socialism is welfare which doesn't depend on who owns the means of productions.

They hold this definition of socialism that nobody subscribes to and pretend that because nobody likes their crazy hypotheticals everyone is in agreement with them.

There are socialists on this board who think a free market economy is better than a central one. Worker coops and socialized public services and untilities are the main themes I see.

It's not like the average right winger knows what socialism is either. That's why we hear so many "Obama socialist Muslim" comments.

 

[Black Mamba]

A federal investigation into events surrounding the Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign in Iowa is ongoing and “expanding,” the Des Moines Register reported today. During a brief hearing that included federal prosecutors and the attorney representing a former Iowa state senator who has pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance rules in connection with the campaign, prosecutors said they are working on a related “larger investigation” and are “making progress,” the paper reported.

While the target of the ongoing investigation isn’t clear, campaign finance records suggest that top aides to the 2012 presidential campaign, some of whom may now be working for Sen. Rand Paul’s presidential bid, might be in the cross-hairs.

On Aug. 27, 2014, Sorenson pleaded guilty to federal charges that in early 2012 he caused an unnamed presidential campaign to file misleading expenditure reports and that he then lied to investigators about it. His plea agreement suggests he will be asked to testify against someone before sentencing. The minutes of today’s hearing note that both sides expect he could be sentenced by April, but Sorenson’s attorney did not elaborate when asked to comment on what that might mean or whether Sorenson would be testifying against anyone else.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/02/investigation-into-ron-pauls-2012-campaign-expanding/

 

[Metaphoreus]

This is a complete punt on my part, and I apologize for it.

No worries.

I should have been more precise and used "statutory" instead of "legal" but I'll let Justice Scalia do the explaining,

the latter is what grammatical construction lacks. This isn't Game of Thrones, we're not trying to figure out who Jon's dad fucked based on cryptic clues left by the author.

Right, an argument which presupposes the correctness of the challenger's claims and rewrites history. My child was more persuasive explaining how a dragon stole his iPod. See, this is where I have to question your sincerity because questioning anything else would get me suspended again.

I'm not sure you understand Scalia's meaning. Here's a fuller discussion of his regarding what he calls the Whole-Text Canon:

Properly applied, [the canon] typically establishes that only one of the possible meanings that a word or phrase can bear is compatible with use of the same word or phrase elsewhere in the statute; or that one of the possible meanings would cause the provision to clash with another portion of the statute. It is not a proper use of the canon to say that since the overall purpose of the statute is to achieve x, any interpretation of the text that limits the achieving of x must be disfavored. As we have said, limitations on a statute's reach are as much a part of the statutory purpose as specifications of what is to be done.

The challengers' analysis of context does precisely what Scalia says should be done by such an analysis: it establishes that "only one of the possible meanings . . . is compatible with use of the same word or phrase elsewhere in the statute." What you want is more akin to the use Scalia criticizes, since you want the challengers to explain how their reading furthers your view of the statute's purpose.

And if the challengers' incentive-function argument assumes that their reading of the statute is correct, so what? It isn't as if they're reasoning in circles, and there's plenty more to the statute that demonstrates Congress' preference that states be the primary actors in implementing the ACA.

Regarding your ineffectively dishonest offspring, I'm not sure what purpose your hyperbole is supposed to serve. Either discuss this topic with me, or don't. I don't care either way, but I won't permit you to turn this into an inquisition concerning my motives, sincerity, or intelligence.

In which they make no attempt to explain the practical absurdity of a federal Exchange with no subsidies (87% of federal exchange customers qualified for subsidies). Why? Because admitting absurd results ruins their case.

You misunderstand the absurdity doctrine. First of all, there is no practical absurdity in an FFE being unable to offer tax credits. As you and I have already determined, the Exchanges serve a great many other functions than just doling out tax credits. Second, even assuming that subsidyless federal Exchanges are a dumb idea in a vacuum, perhaps they aren't so dumb if coaxing states to establish their own Exchanges is Congress' goal. Finally, regardless how stupid you might consider such a scheme, Congress is free to enact stupid schemes. The absurdity doctrine permits courts to ignore the plain meaning of a text only when that plain meaning is so absurd that no reasonable person could approve. But it is indisputable that just such a system was suggested in Congress on multiple occasions--so that outcome cannot be absurd under the preceding definition. (Trivia: The OK District Court in Pruitt, which also struck down the subsidies on FFEs, took Gruber's 2012 comments as evidence that the challengers' reading of the statute was not absurd.)

 

[Black Mamba]

There is literally no reason to have federal exchanges if they do not dole out subsidies.

Any argument to the contrary is nonsense.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

There are socialists on this board who think a free market economy is better than a central one. Worker coops and socialized public services and untilities are the main themes I see.

It's not like the average right winger knows what socialism is either. That's why we hear so many "Obama socialist Muslim" comments.

Most socialists in the 21st century tend to hold those views. But the media pretends its no government or all government.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm really looking forward to the King opinion so that we can get back to talking about how Hillary will lose the 2016 nomination battle against Michelle Obama, who will go on to defeat Palin/Santorum by keeping Pennsylvania blue.

Hillary will need all the help she can get to keep Pennsylvania blue, the most conservative state in the nation.

 

[HyperionX]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an “A”.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a “B”. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a “D”! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the new average was an “F”.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Human nature will always cause socialism's style of government to fail because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers).

It could not be any simpler than that.

The problem with that example is that the system we have today is better described as having one student get an "A", maybe one or two getting "B"s, and the rest fail the class. People who tell these types of story seem to oblivious to the fact that the current system isn't that much better.

 

[ivysaur12]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an “A”.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a “B”. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a “D”! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the new average was an “F”.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Human nature will always cause socialism's style of government to fail because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers).

It could not be any simpler than that.

Did you… just post a chain email?

 

[thepotatoman]

This is used to po -po millennial and call them stupid for supporting socialism but not "knowing what it is"

What a stupid conclusion to draw from that. Maybe its just younger people don't see the world in black and white. Is Europe not free market? Is it socialist? Can't it be both?

Not many socialist are even calling for government manged economies just regulation and occasional intervention. And the major thing people associate with socialism is welfare which doesn't depend on who owns the means of productions.

They hold this definition of socialism that nobody subscribes to and pretend that because nobody likes their crazy hypotheticals everyone is in agreement with them.

If people pigeonholed capitalism and free market economies in the same way they do with socialism, we wouldn't be calling America a free market capitalist society.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Well Jason Kander of MO. its your political funeral. You should have run for re-election. I dont get why the State Treasurer didnt run. Atleast he was term-limited.

 

[B-Dubs]

Did you… just post a chain email?

Not only that, but it's one that has been posted here before as a laugh.

 

[demon]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an “A”.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a “B”. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a “D”! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the new average was an “F”.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Human nature will always cause socialism's style of government to fail because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers).

It could not be any simpler than that.

He then proceeded to drop on egg onto the floor to prove that trickle-down economics works but ran out of the room in tears after it hit his shoe without breaking.

 

[Black Mamba]

Apparently, O'Reilly has had his Brian Williams moment:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/bill-oreilly-brian-williams-falklands-war

 

[B-Dubs]

Apparently, O'Reilly has had his Brian Williams moment:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/bill-oreilly-brian-williams-falklands-war

Gotta love that double standard, they'll string up Williams but O'Reilly does it, and it's probably worse here, and nothing will happen.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Gotta love that double standard, they'll string up Williams but O'Reilly does it, and it's probably worse here, and nothing will happen.

He's not a journalist...

 

[Black Mamba]

He's not a journalist...

What?

Do you know what you're talking about?

 

[B-Dubs]

He's not a journalist...

He used to be and he did put it in his book. Even as a pundit or writing editorials there are standards about lying like this. Opinion writer have been fired before for misrepresenting the facts, there was a guy that got the boot from the NYPost a number of years back, we're talking a few decades though, for lying about the facts in a column he wrote about a murder. Eventually he was able to work his way back in, but it took a long time to regain the editorial board's trust.

Plus when you say things like this:

When O'Reilly was excoriating Brian Williams last week for telling a war-related whopper, he said of his Fox television show, "We've made some mistakes in the past but very few…We take great pains to present you with information that can be verified." And he asserted, "Reporting comes with a big responsibility, the Founding Fathers made that point very clearly. They said to us, 'We'll give you freedom. We'll protect you from government intrusion. But, in return, you, the press, must be honest.'"

You had better be damn sure you haven't done the same.

Basically as a pundit or editorial writer you have greater leeway with positions, but flat out lying is still not allowed. Doesn't matter what you are, this is a big no-no.

 

[Crisco]

I'm not sure you understand Scalia's meaning. Here's a fuller discussion of his regarding what he calls the Whole-Text Canon:

The challengers' analysis of context does precisely what Scalia says should be done by such an analysis: it establishes that "only one of the possible meanings . . . is compatible with use of the same word or phrase elsewhere in the statute." What you want is more akin to the use Scalia criticizes, since you want the challengers to explain how their reading furthers your view of the statute's purpose.

I don't really care what Scalia thinks, I was just using his words to help make a point: laws aren't novels. Grammatical nuance cannot bear the weight of shifting statutory authority contra to the overall scheme.

And if the challengers' incentive-function argument assumes that their reading of the statute is correct, so what? It isn't as if they're reasoning in circles, and there's plenty more to the statute that demonstrates Congress' preference that states be the primary actors in implementing the ACA.

You don't see a problem with every single facet of a case resting on an interpretation of grammatical nuance? Literally every single one, including this one? Because "by" and "within" are different words, the States would have kowtowed to the Feds and setup their own Exchanges. That's a sound legal case to you? Ok.

Regarding your ineffectively dishonest offspring, I'm not sure what purpose your hyperbole is supposed to serve. Either discuss this topic with me, or don't. I don't care either way, but I won't permit you to turn this into an inquisition concerning my motives, sincerity, or intelligence.

I'll turn this into anything I want, including a monologue if you'd rather stop responding. Why? Because it's fun. I believe this case is a comical outrage to the American legal system and anyone who believes in it is either self serving or grossly misinformed.

You misunderstand the absurdity doctrine. First of all, there is no practical absurdity in an FFE being unable to offer tax credits. As you and I have already determined, the Exchanges serve a great many other functions than just doling out tax credits. Second, even assuming that subsidyless federal Exchanges are a dumb idea in a vacuum, perhaps they aren't so dumb if coaxing states to establish their own Exchanges is Congress' goal. Finally, regardless how stupid you might consider such a scheme, Congress is free to enact stupid schemes. The absurdity doctrine permits courts to ignore the plain meaning of a text only when that plain meaning is so absurd that no reasonable person could approve. But it is indisputable that just such a system was suggested in Congress on multiple occasions--so that outcome cannot be absurd under the preceding definition. (Trivia: The OK District Court in Pruitt, which also struck down the subsidies on FFEs, took Gruber's 2012 comments as evidence that the challengers' reading of the statute was not absurd.)

I'll just stop you right there. There is no practical absurdity in an FFE, designed as a surrogate for State Exchanges offering subsidized insurance plans, to not offer subsidized insurance plans. That's not a dumb idea by Congress, that's an illogical conclusion based on vacuous grammar trolling. We're not talking about the plausibility or legality of Congress enacting laws that clearly won't work, we're talking about the authority of the Courts to upend a statutory scheme over, as the government puts it, a "term of art".

 

[NYCmetsfan]

He's not a journalist...

Yes he is. This notion that fox parades around between opinion and news is hogwash. Try to define the difference and you'll see why its a meaningless difference.

There is no such thing as a "journalist" there are people that attempt to tell the news, williams and bill both do this.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I don't really care what Scalia thinks, I was just using his words to help make a point: laws aren't novels. Grammatical nuance cannot bear the weight of shifting statutory authority contra to the overall scheme.


You don't see a problem with every single facet of a case resting on an interpretation of grammatical nuance? Literally every single one, including this one? Because "by" and "within" are different words, the States would have kowtowed to the Feds and setup their own Exchanges. That's a sound legal case to you? Ok.

How exactly do you think statutes work?

(And the government's "term of art" argument is among their worst. It's literally, "We know the statute says the opposite of what we claim, but that's just the secret way Congress decided to say what we claim!")

 

[Crisco]

How exactly do you think statutes work?

(And the government's "term of art" argument is among their worst. It's literally, "We know the statute says the opposite of what we claim, but that's just the secret way Congress decided to say what we claim!")

Honestly if I were writing the government's brief I would have probably conceded the possibility of a drafting error, but given the brazen nature of the lawsuit, I'm glad they went with the "give no ground" approach.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Honestly if I were writing the government's brief I would have probably conceded the possibility of a drafting error, but given the brazen nature of the lawsuit, I'm glad they went with the "give no ground" approach.

Which the supreme court does all the time.

 

[benjipwns]

If people pigeonholed capitalism and free market economies in the same way they do with socialism, we wouldn't be calling America a free market capitalist society.

What's this "we" stuff?

 

[Oblivion]

First of all, remember the distinction between the objective "intent" of the legislature as reflected in the text of a statute, and subjective "intent" of legislators that is not reflected in the text of a statute. The challengers' argument is strongest when directed at the former "intent," and weakest when directed at the latter. But the former is what matters, in the end.

And you're misreading the challengers' argument, which doesn't turn on the use of "the" instead of "a," but "by" instead of "within." It may seem odd that so much can turn on a single word, but the law uses language with precision.

No, as I've said before, I could stomach the idea of being force to follow the law as poorly written. However, this would only work if that particular line you're talking about, the one that this entire case hinges on, was the only line that had anything to say about the exchanges. But it doesn't. If you read the law in its entirety, there are dozens of instances where the role of the federal government in the exchanges is clearly laid out. And when read in totality, with context, it's unquestionable what the actual legislative intent is supposed to be.

 

[Oblivion]

Also, this is supposed to be the smart Bush?

Bush criticized the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran in a way that didn’t make much sense.

* He said he doesn’t “understand” opposition to blanket NSA surveillance. There’s no better way to prove that Bush his “own man” than by embracing his big brother’s NSA program, right?

* “I believe fundamentally weakness invites war,” he said. Both his father and brother felt the need to launch wars. As Jeb Bush sees it, was this the result of pre-war weakness?

* Apparently echoing Mitt Romney, Jeb said, “We have no reason to apologize for our leadership.” That’s nice, but no American official has ever suggested we should apologize for our leadership, making this foolish.

* On the failed Cuba embargo, Bush added, “Had they waited, had the administration, if they were serious about creating the climate for a free Cuba, had they waited, they would have seen significant economic strains that would’ve probably brought Cuba to the table.” Yes, the policy that never worked over the course of a half-century would have finally paid dividends if only Obama had been patient.

Asked about NATO and the Baltics, Bush responded, “I don’t know what the effect has been because, you know, it’s really kind of hard to be out on the road and I’m just a gladiator these days, so I don’t follow every little detail.” Asked about tribalism in the Middle East, he said, “As it relates to the breakdown of the – you know, the nation states, I don’t have a solution. I mean, I – I – I’ve read articles.”

And asked about nuclear proliferation, the former governor said, “Look, this is a – the more I get into this stuff, there are some things you just go, you know, holy schnikes.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/failure-substance-and-style

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It's a pretty blatant case of media propaganda, reminiscent of the breathless coverage Iraq/Saddam received leading up to that war. It's clear the war drums are being beaten. Over a group of fanatics that poses no threat to our country, and could not withstand a decisive attack from a decent military. There are plenty of such forces in the Middle East; perhaps they should do something.

I really don't see it the same as Iraq. I think people really just wanted a war there and didn't really fear anything, it was more muscular posturing.

I think people are literally being goaded into a war because their scared and they don't know how to react to a threat without flatting the region.

It'd related it more to Vietnam where there is an ideology we "must combat" and if we don't it will spread all over. Its a kind of, if I may, child like response to a complex problem.We're already seeing things like body county become touted and the resurgence of some domino.

 

[Frank the Great]

Also, this is supposed to be the smart Bush?



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/failure-substance-and-style

Holy schnikes.

 

[Chichikov]

There are socialists on this board who think a free market economy is better than a central one. Worker coops and socialized public services and untilities are the main themes I see.

It's not like the average right winger knows what socialism is either. That's why we hear so many "Obama socialist Muslim" comments.

That would be me for the most part, and I generally think that free market vs. centralized control is a much more practical question than an ideological one, I think certain things works better under a free market system and certain things don't, we should experiment.

The only ideological points I really have there is that I think we should try and optimize for the common good (I don't think that's controversial) and that I don't think the current system we have rewards the right people.
No system can be perfect, but we can make a better one.